A god who existed forever

[Tank]

osculate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate

I've not come across this term before. Could you pad out the definition a little in the context of your posts. Thanks.

I assumed it was a misspelling of "oscillate".

Possibly, but I'm no sure. It's the tangential mathematical element in the definition of osculate that may be in use here.

[deekayfry]

So your argument here is that non-existence, non-material, non-physicality can magically exist as a person, place, or thing of existence? That makes absolutely no logical sense sir. Why it's incoherent notion:

"Non-existence can magically exist as a thing of existence"?  I don't mean to be rude, but I have great trouble taking someone seriously when they use such obviously meaningless language.

If something is non-material is it then thus made of nothing? How can something exist have have no substance, or material.. To state something is non-material is stating it's made of nothing. So if you are going to attempt to argue nothing can be something, you will need to take the time to define what these words mean. So if you are not made of anything, you essentially don't exist

You are begging the question!  You equivocate "having no material" with "being nothing".  If your argument has any non-tautologous content, please put your argument in syllogistic form - premises and the conclusion that "non-material entities cannot exist".

To be a Phenomenon or have process, function, ability, or be made of material you will require physicality. To state something has no physicality is also stating it has no phenomenon, function, ability, process, or being made of anything. And thus again you are referring to nothing as a something to which is impossible.

You are begging the question!  Premises please with the conclusion "non-physical entities cannot exist".

To state something exists out side of time is suggesting something doesn't exist. When dealing with a consciousness for example, all minds must be temporally bound to time in order to have process, ability, function, thought, progression, experience, observation, mobility, motion, inertia, or be able to do something.. Theists stating a being is outside of time don't realize you can't design, create, think, or make choices or decisions without time, or being bound to it.. Consciousness is an active phenomenon, or material physical process and requires inertia to be in process.

You are...guess what...begging the question!  Simply stating "such and such must..." is not an argument!  Again, premises, concluding that "atemporal entities cannot exist".

Without spatial space or dimensional attributes you have no means of existing. To have no place to exist, or to have no dimensional attributes as an object of observation, you simply wouldn't exist. Here again we go right back into the definition of nothing and theists trying to claim nothing can magically be a something.. It's entirely incoherent to suggest something exists outside of dimensional spatial space. This would literally mean such suggested fallacious object would have no attributes to which would be observable. Even your Idea of said deity had dimensional attributes as a pattern of energy, or as an image or thought.

Surprisingly: more question-begging assertions.  Premises that logically lead to the conclusion "aspatial entities cannot exist" if you please.

You are using soliloquy as means to distract from the debate at hand.  As you would know, this is called "straw man."   Any reasonable person entering into a good faith and civil debate accepts that logical fallacies do exist when although the logic is fallacious the information is true.

The form of Mr. TheJackel's argument does not automatically falsify the statements he makes.

[TheJackel]

"Non-existence can magically exist as a thing of existence"?  I don't mean to be rude, but I have great trouble taking someone seriously when they use such obviously meaningless language.

Wrong, this is a question directed at you, and for you to answer. You can feel free to attempt to argue otherwise and provide evidence to show the existence of a non-existing person, place, or thing.. Otherwise you are just playing a game of distraction, and avoidance while pretending not to comprehend the argument. If you want to play circular games, you know where the door is.

You are begging the question!  You equivocate "having no material" with "being nothing".  If your argument has any non-tautologous content, please put your argument in syllogistic form - premises and the conclusion that "non-material entities cannot exist".

You can feel free to show us what non-material looks like, feels like, and what exactly it is then. Your argument here is meaningless because you don't seem to comprehend what non-material means apparently (sorry, I don't mean to be rude ).. And I am not stating that nothing is a material substance either, as I have clearly stated that non-material simply doesn't exist because it simply by definition states that there is no material or substance.. Theists trying to claim an entity or object is non-material is illogical and simply impossible.

Adverb

non

   1. no
   2. not

[edit] Interjection

non !

   1. no!

Nothing:

1: no
2: not
3: Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything. Hence, the absence of material physicality would be nothing, or nothingness to which is impossible.

You are begging the question!  Premises please with the conclusion "non-physical entities cannot exist".

physicality [ˌfɪzɪˈkælɪtɪ]
n
1. the state or quality of being physical
2. the physical characteristics of a person, object, etc.
3.  Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
4. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

Hence, in order to have properties, attributes, process, functionality, or activity is to have physicality.. So yes, there can be no such thing as a non-physical entity.. You can feel free to show us how something can exist without properties, attributes, characteristics, material, process, function, ability, ectra.. Otherwise you are talking in circles, and avoiding having to address the argument.

You are...guess what...begging the question!  Simply stating "such and such must..." is not an argument!  Again, premises, concluding that "atemporal entities cannot exist".

Again you are pleading to avoid the argument in attempt to deflect the argument into nonsensical circles. This is entirely a valid argument and you can feel free to prove me wrong by showing us how something that can have inertia, process, ability, function, action, or reaction without temporality. You can feel free to show us how you can have progressive mental processing without having inertia or forward progression of mental process. So before you start crying out that I am begging the question, you really need to comprehend what you are trying to suggest.

Surprisingly: more question-begging assertions.  Premises that logically lead to the conclusion "aspatial entities cannot exist" if you please.

Again, you are pleading while providing no argument to suggest how something can exist in an aspatial existence.. Simply put sir, if it has no place to exist, it simply doesn't exist. In essence you are trying to claim an object or entity can exist in a place that has no capacity to exist itself or contain anything.. And the premise is correct, there can be no such thing as aspatial entities. Again you can fee free to show me a -1 dimensional object, or even attempt to describe to me what a -1 dimensional object would look like. You will find that to be impossible.

[TheJackel]

osculate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate

I've not come across this term before. Could you pad out the definition a little in the context of your posts. Thanks.

I assumed it was a misspelling of "oscillate".

Possibly, but I'm no sure. It's the tangential mathematical element in the definition of osculate that may be in use here.

Sorry I meant oscillation, or that energy Vibrates, or always has momentum, motion, or activity.. Hence, it's always in process because electromagnetism is simply a natural attribute or property of energy. Even under controlled circumstances absolute zero could never be achieved because it's impossible to literally stop energy from oscillating. And this is especially true at the quantum level.

Again sorry for the typo, I don't know why I used the term osculation.. But hey, kissing is kewl  

[Jack's Disciple]

You are using soliloquy as means to distract from the debate at hand.  As you would know, this is called "straw man."   Any reasonable person entering into a good faith and civil debate accepts that logical fallacies do exist when although the logic is fallacious the information is true.

The form of Mr. TheJackel's argument does not automatically falsify the statements he makes.

• The thread is about whether atemporal existence is coherent.
• TheJackel claimed that atemporal existence (along with immaterial, non-physical and aspatial existence) is incoherent, and gave reasons why he thought it was.
• I claimed that these reasons beg the question.

The distraction in this thread, if there is one, is the discussion about whether anything existed before the Big Bang.  All I am doing is trying to get us back on topic.  While I agree that the truth-value of TheJackel's claims do not depend on his arguing for them, claiming to disprove the existence of God is rather vacuous without any justification.

[TheJackel]

• The thread is about whether atemporal existence is coherent.
  

Well, it simply isn't

[/li]
[li]TheJackel claimed that atemporal existence (along with immaterial, non-physical and aspatial existence) is incoherent, and gave reasons why he thought it was.

The "why" I provided is hardly that of opinion, but logical understanding of what the implications are when addressing the actual reality and meaning behind the notion of what non-material physicality actually means. And what atemporal actually implies.. These are things many theists don't stop and think about when they attempt to imply them as some sort of divine truth, or possibility when in fact it's simply not possible and is entirely illogically fallacious.

[/li]
[li]I claimed that these reasons beg the question. [/li][/list]

That is of your opinion, and does not make your argument relevant or meaningful without providing something empirical to substantiate your claims against my argument to show it's being assumed.. Sorry, but my argument has empirical evidence, and scientific evidence to support it. Hence, I am not just wildly making assumptions here, and I am telling you what exactly it means when you are talking about non-material, non-physicality, atemporal, and aspatial.. You simply fail to realize these are attributes or properties aligned with the definitions of nothing, non-existence, non-existent, no, not, and nothingness.. Those are facts you are going to have to deal with, and trying to re-label them as "atmeporal", "amaterial", "aphysical", or "aspatial" is not going to magically change the meanings, or what they actually are implying.

The distraction in this thread, if there is one, is the discussion about whether anything existed before the Big Bang.  All I am doing is trying to get us back on topic.  While I agree that the truth-value of TheJackel's claims do not depend on his arguing for them, claiming to disprove the existence of God is rather vacuous without any justification.

I had clearly outlined this within my arguments, and the topic never went off topic vs going into scientific explanation of what was here before the Big Bang. You seemingly missed the boat on this and why my arguments here are entirely relevant to the topic of discussion. And you must remember we are on an Atheist website while under a thread titled "A God who existed forever".. My entire argument was to show that we can define GOD not as an entity, but rather as the substance of existence itself.. I also clearly stated why no mind or deity could ever be the source origin of existence due to the fact that it can not create that which itself would require to exist, or even know itself exists.

And for the argument of a forever existing deity to even be valid, or relevant, the person making the claim must actually validate and substantiate said deity's existence to the point of being absolutely irrefutable.. Hence, I can prove energy and existence exist without possible argument, but your argument is like trying to prove a non-existing object magically exists giving the attributes theists attempt to attach to their deity as being non-material, non-physical, aspatial, and atemporal.. But hey, if theists want to unknowingly call their GOD nothing, so be it

[TheJackel]

This is why life is observer matter capable of processing observable information that is all material!

Existence, energy, and information are essentially the same coin!

Existence is A phenomenal reality of physical self-osculating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, mass possible.

I'm curious about a couple of points along the way in your argument. Firstly I would like to say that I entirely agree with you regarding the natural, physical, material basis of the mind, but you seem to imply that you have neatly and definitively disposed of the dualists and all their arguments.  A laudible feat, if true, since materialist and physicist philosophers have been arguing to do that very thing for a number of years now, with no very great concensus as to their success (although, obviously, Dennett and Chuchland feel they gone a long way towards this).  Now, you may say that is merely evidence of the ineptitude of philosophers and those who pretend to understand them.  Still...I would very much like to know precisely how you have done this.  It just doesn't quite seem to follow exactly from the argument as you present it.  You seem to be assuming a few things.  Can you expand on your arguments?

The crucial link in your argument appears to me to be a linkage between "information" (as a basic component of existence) and your use of the term "phenomenal."  Are you essentially equating these two terms?  How do you answer the qualia question?  How is information, which in the brain is represented by electrochemical interactions, translated into what you would presumably claim to the "information" of phenomenal qualities?  How do you answer the subjectivity problem?  

I would also like to point out that I understand, and concede, the points about non-dimensionality, non-materiality, etc. - so that an attempt to claim that the mind is "non-material" is fatally flawed.  I'm just curious how, specifically, you answer the "what it is like" problem.

Hello The Black Jester

If I am stating that information is equal to all mass, matter, and energy.., I am clearly stating that Energy to which is the substance of all existence is also that of all information, pattern, phenomenon, or process. There can be no phenomenon without material physicality.. I had a very interesting debate on this here:


Page 12:Yes science can explain these things / what is information? / understanding information formation / mental processing.

Page 26:Final argument on Noumenon, Phenomena, and Memory

Page 27:Closing arguments on non-material 2[/url]

This is where the mind can be considered as a perfect example of quantum mechanics, computation, and physics.. And this is also where Existence can also be considered as an example of Quantum Mechanics because it is a self-oscillating progressive and regressive flow of energy to where any pattern of behavior can arise to which includes morality, love, feeling, hate, anger, action, reaction, or the simple bounce of a bouncing ball  ectra.. These things are just behavioral attributes of energy, or physical pattern from a physical and material process..

* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization

Abstract

The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors

Example of Self organization:

Enzymes:

Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.

Chaos Theory:

Cybernetic and Chaos - Positive and negative feeback And how feedback is the controlling mechanisms in pattern and order.. This link also discusses brain self-organization.

[youtube:2xl17fbt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ[/youtube:2xl17fbt]

Quantume electrodynamics, self-oscillation, and self-organization of energy leads to increased complexity, processes, and behavioral dynamics.. Hence, all matter is, is energy. Life is nothing more than matter and energy.. Self-organization, and self-oscillation can lead to cognitive dynamics, and observer matter relationships to where information can process other pieces of information including itself( energy processing energy).. Hence, all you are doing is going from self-oscillation, to self-organization, and then to self-direction of both attributes.. At some point cognitive dynamics turn into cognitive self direction, and later on could lead to conscious awareness.

Plants for example show what primitive cognitive dynamics looks like before the evolution of the brain.. Hence plants show behaviors that exhibit cognitive dynamics such as the ability to solve problems, avoid obstacles, plant their own seeds, co-evolve to specific species of insects or animals, move in a 3d environment, or communicate ect. Even though these are chemically or sometimes electrically driven, they are none-the-less dynamics associated with intelligence, the basics to awareness, and cognition at the most primitive levels.

Example:

Plant stimuli reactions from wikipedia:

* Auxin - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Chemotropism - Plant response to chemicals
* Cryptochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Ethylene - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Gravitropism - Behavior associated with gravitic perception
* Heliotropism - Behavior associated with sunlight perception
* Hormonal sentience - Plant information processing theory
* Hydrotropism - Plant response to moisture
* Hypersensitive response - Local reaction produced in response to infection by microbes
* Kinesis - Movement
* Nastic movements - A type of rapid response to non-directional stimulus
* Osmosis - A means of water transportation on the cellular level
* Phototropin - A light receptor pigment
* Phototropism - A behavior associated with light perception
* Phytochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Phytosemiotics - Analysis of vegetative processes on the basis of semiotic theory
* Plant defense against herbivory - Some plant responses to physical disruption
* Plant hormone - A mediator of response to stimuli
* Plant physiology - The science of plant function
* Rapid plant movement - Description of rapid plant movements
* Sensory receptors - Discussion of organs of perception in organisms
* Statolith - An organ of gravity perception
* Stoma - A plant pore which responds to stimulus and which regulates gas exchange
* Systemic acquired resistance - A "whole-plant" resistance response to microbial pathogens that occurs following an earlier, localized response
* Taxis - A type of response to a directional stimulus seen in motile developmental stages of lower plants
* Thermotropism - Plant response to heat
* Thigmotropism - Plant response to touch
* Tropism - A type of response to a directional stimulus

Now you can ask me why haven't plants evolved consciousness by now? Well, evolution does not state that they would because Chaos theory states that there is only a probability of this occurring in plants..This means they could plausibly do so, and there are examples of plant-like animals such as the Green Sea slug to which produces its own chlorophyll though horizontal gene transfers with algae as an example of the direction to which plant and animal evolution might progress from.

[TheJackel]

Some other interesting videos on Energy and Life:

[youtube:2k58be8i]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXTOSdnsTTk[/youtube:2k58be8i]
-
[youtube:2k58be8i]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKpXlbeHwh4[/youtube:2k58be8i]

[curiosityandthecat]

"God" is an easy answer for hard questions. It's the equivalent of saying "stuff" when asked what's inside the Large Hadron Collider.  

[TheJackel]

"God" is an easy answer for hard questions. It's the equivalent of saying "stuff" when asked what's inside the Large Hadron Collider.  roflol

Seriously though, theists assume creation had to be how everything came to be because of the complexity of it all. And yet they like to claim the most complex thing that anyone can think of as being the source origin to complexity. This would be like taking ten apples and then imply the 10th apple could exist prior to the 9 other apples just so itself as the 10th apple could design and create the 9 other apples including itself. It's essentially ass backwards logic, or reverse creationism to which makes absolutely no coherent sense at all. And the worst part of that is where they make this complexity argument and then assign attributes consistent with non-existence, nothingness, or nothing to it. It's just mind boggling how anyone can logically rationalize it into some meaningful coherent ideological construct. :cool:

[The Black Jester]

TheJackel -

Thank you for the astounding thoroughness of your reply, I very much appreciate it.  I have read your responses with great interest, have read the sections of your other discussion to which you provided links, but have yet to watch the videos you posted.  I will definitely do so.  I'm not entirely convinced (yet) that you've answered the subjectivity problem, but I see an interesting possibiltiy in the way you addressed the noumena/phenomena issue in the other post.  This actually makes me a little chagrin that I began another thread on consciousness, when it clearly had been well discussed elsewhere.  But I'm interested to see what others think.  Hopefully they will respond.  

Obviously, dualist conceptions of mind, like religion, are a mystical attempt to explain what was, for earlier ages, inexplicable (the seeming non-material nature of phenomenal experience).  Why do so many fight so hard to keep things inexplicable, rather than joyfully anticipating explication?  Yes, they see their own inexplicably unsound exlpanations as proper explanations, and are therefore entrenched against competing theories.  But it never ceases to amaze me, the resistence better explanations face in the fight for credibility and acceptance.

[TheJackel]

TheJackel -

Thank you for the astounding thoroughness of your reply, I very much appreciate it.  I have read your responses with great interest, have read the sections of your other discussion to which you provided links, but have yet to watch the videos you posted.  I will definitely do so.  I'm not entirely convinced (yet) that you've answered the subjectivity problem, but I see an interesting possibiltiy in the way you addressed the noumena/phenomena issue in the other post.  This actually makes me a little chagrin that I began another thread on consciousness, when it clearly had been well discussed elsewhere.  But I'm interested to see what others think.  Hopefully they will respond.

You are welcome I will post an example on morality shorty for you as an example

[winli]

I think it makes sense, but I don't think it would be useful in debating a theist.




_____________
spam removed by admin

[TheJackel]

I think it makes sense, but I don't think it would be useful in debating a theist.