The Futile Arguments Thread

[AnimatedDirt]

Complexity begins from the bottom.

If this is true, then explain why we go from simple organisms to more complex organisms and not the other way around as you suggest?

[TheJackel]

Complexity begins from the bottom.

If this is true, then explain why we go from simple organisms to more complex organisms and not the other way around as you suggest?

Because it can, and when you die that process reverts doesn't it? It could start all over again. The entire system is a complex adaptive system to which has a ground state, or the base cause principles. Knowing where that begins will not be found in something as complex as a conscious entity. The argument is very clear, and very simple. Consciousness can not exist without cause.. So we are left with what can or does. The logical conclusion is that which everything made of, or simply existence itself. You, I, or a GOD would be irrelevant to existence because it's not existence that requires us to exist, it's the other way around!. Theists simply have it all backwards. So the simple answer is that existence simply exists because non-existence doesn't. And that isn't an argument to say GOD exists beyond the concept or idea of it, it simply means that anything that does exist will exist because it's possible to exist. Things that are not possible to exist simply won't exist literally, and will just remain as ideas or concepts at best.

I have this saying:

I would have believed in GOD if I did not know that GOD would not exist without the value of the information to which it's concept is constructed from. For those looking for a deeper meaning to this, consciousness is not without cause.

So what is GOD exactly to you? Under Christianity, the description of GOD under Christianity could only ever at best be the description of the entire sum total of existence itself.

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

   Abstract 1:
    "The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

   Abstract 2:
    "And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

       1. Omniscient
       2. Boundless
       3. Unlimited
       4. Uncontained
       5. The containing and sustaining of all things
       6. Timeless
       7. Omnipresent

 If you really spent the time to think about these things, it seems like the bible is metaphorically just worshiping existence itself to which they are equally apart of. It seems pretty damn useless to me, or at the very least moot. So I say to theists that I surely can't prove the non-existence of existence.

[AnimatedDirt]

Because it can, and when you die that process reverts doesn't it? It could start all over again. The entire system is a complex adaptive system to which has a ground state, or the base cause principles.

So basically what you're saying is the same thing the Theist says, except that you deny God.

In other words, prior to the "Big Bang", there was something more complex that died and the process started all over again...

[TheJackel]

Because it can, and when you die that process reverts doesn't it? It could start all over again. The entire system is a complex adaptive system to which has a ground state, or the base cause principles.

So basically what you're saying is the same thing the Theist says, except that you deny God.

In other words, prior to the "Big Bang", there was something more complex that died and the process started all over again...

Nope I thus am GOD, and so is the dirt under my feet. It just becomes really moot of an argument.

[AnimatedDirt]

Nope I thus am GOD, and so is the dirt under my feet. It just becomes really moot of an argument.

Mmm...Nope.  No such claim.  Assertions to a claim is more like it.

[TheJackel]

Nope I thus am GOD, and so is the dirt under my feet. It just becomes really moot of an argument.

Mmm...Nope.  No such claim.  Assertions to a claim is more like it.

Then you can't claim a GOD that fits the description posted above.. Thus I had asked you what you think GOD is. Because many Atheists (not all), see the Universe or existence as an Anthropic Universe/existence.

From this perspective, the universe can be thought of as an information processor. It takes information regarding how things are now and produces information delineating how things will be at the next now, and the now after that. Our senses become aware of such processing by detecting how the physical environment changes over time. But the physical environment itself is emergent; it arises from the fundamental ingredient, information, and evolves according to the fundamental rules, the laws of physics. (-Brian Greene, Rhodes Scholar, Professor, Physics & Mathematics)

So you are going to have a very tough time answering the question without just simply deflecting, or ignoring it. If you can't address the questions then I will accept that and move on.

[AnimatedDirt]

Thus I had asked you what you think GOD is.

Obviously having not met God in person yet, I have no idea WHAT God is.  God makes no claim to what or where (at least within our understanding) He comes from other than to say that HE IS.  He claims to be the Alpha and Omega.

So the answer is, I don't know what God is.  I don't think it's very important for me to understand WHAT He is.  What is important from my perspective is whether I take the gift this God is offering.  If I do, then I do because I want to, not because I must.

[GAYtheist]

Obviously having not met God in person yet, I have no idea WHAT God is.  God makes no claim to what or where (at least within our understanding) He comes from other than to say that HE IS.  He claims to be the Alpha and Omega.

So the answer is, I don't know what God is.  I don't think it's very important for me to understand WHAT He is.  What is important from my perspective is whether I take the gift this God is offering.  If I do, then I do because I want to, not because I must.

...Wait, are you saying there is more than one god? Also, even if he IS, then who created him? I love the infinite complexity idea, because it really makes sense, to me anyway.

[AnimatedDirt]

Obviously having not met God in person yet, I have no idea WHAT God is.  God makes no claim to what or where (at least within our understanding) He comes from other than to say that HE IS.  He claims to be the Alpha and Omega.

So the answer is, I don't know what God is.  I don't think it's very important for me to understand WHAT He is.  What is important from my perspective is whether I take the gift this God is offering.  If I do, then I do because I want to, not because I must.

...Wait, are you saying there is more than one god? Also, even if he IS, then who created him? I love the infinite complexity idea, because it really makes sense, to me anyway.

Are you asking in regard to God (more than one) claiming to be the Alpha and Omega?
Who created God?  Good question.  One I gather we will not get an answer to prior to meeting God, however I can assume that the claim of "I AM" might be the answer.

[TheJackel]

AnimatedDirt wrote:Obviously having not met God in person yet, I have no idea WHAT God is. God makes no claim to what or where (at least within our understanding) He comes from other than to say that HE IS. He claims to be the Alpha and Omega.

So the answer is, I don't know what God is. I don't think it's very important for me to understand WHAT He is. What is important from my perspective is whether I take the gift this God is offering. If I do, then I do because I want to, not because I must.

This is also a very deflective argument that essentially admits "I don't know", and thus I just assume the two words "I am" typed out or written in a book translates to somethings existence. Even in that case it doesn't answer the problem or the questions. This is because I can make the same argument and just say "Existence is".. The biggest difference is one is the sum total of everything and the other is finite.. I can also say that "I am" too,  and nullify that entire argument. However, "I am" can never be without cause because "I", and like everything else that exists, is only reference to the information that makes them what they are. And they are products of what they are made out of. It's not the entity that is the answer, it's what it's made of that is the answer to the riddle  Thus no consciousness could ever answer the riddle of why we are here! It's literally a ridiculous answer. Especially in dealing with things as complex as consciousness. Cause doesn't begin with consciousness, it begins with what doesn't have cause (can't possibly have cause), and that is those base ground state principles of cause outlined above.

[Stevil]

These aren't pre-requisite reading, they aren't refered as a single source of truth.

Nor is the Bible.  One can be saved without ever having opened one.  It's possible, not the norm, but possible.

Noone knows if anyone has every been "saved" and further to the point noone knows what the norm would be with regards to a person being "saved", simply because there is no way to gather any statistics on such an occurance.
No one knows what the goal is, and no one knows how to get there or if anyone has ever succeded. It's a futile excercise and in my opinion devouting one's life to an unproven path towards an unknown goal puts one's life into a futile existence. But to each his own as long as you don't push your ways on others, and going by your posts, you are pretty tolerant and happy to accept others beliefs or non beliefs.
In a long term perspective all of our lives are a futile existence anyway, so please don't take that statement as an insult.

[TheJackel]

Goals are self-attained either consciously or unconsciously. The purpose of anything that exists is that it exists.. From there further purpose can be attained or gained. It's the principle of emergence!

[AnimatedDirt]

This is also a very deflective argument that essentially admits "I don't know", and thus I just assume the two words "I am" typed out or written in a book translates to somethings existence.

Not at all.  There is substance to the "I Am" and that is the evidence God has given as to who He is.  *You simply ignore or push it aside and seemingly put your fingers in your ears.  It is not simply a belief in written words/letters in a book.  The belief is the truth found therein.

Even in that case it doesn't answer the problem or the questions.

The questions don't need answers just like a child doesn't need to know why the parent says 'yes' or 'no' to something.  It is not important or it's not for the child to know at that point.

This is because I can make the same argument and just say "Existence is"..

Who's arguing for that?  What does it matter if Existence simply IS?

The biggest difference is one is the sum total of everything and the other is finite.. I can also say that "I am" too,  and nullify that entire argument. However, "I am" can never be without cause because "I", and like everything else that exists, is only reference to the information that makes them what they are.

You can't really because you have not established what makes you the "I Am".  You have not done anything worth the claim, nor can you do anything worthy of the claim.  In the least, the God-inspired Bible has evidence to believe that it is of something supernatural.  None have commented on the one piece of evidence a page or two back.

And they are products of what they are made out of. It's not the entity that is the answer, it's what it's made of that is the answer to the riddle

Made of?  Again...what does it matter what the entitiy is made of?  What if the entity is made of gravity?  You believe in gravity, don't you?  What is it made of?

Thus no consciousness could ever answer the riddle of why we are here! It's literally a ridiculous answer.

Yet you, apparently having a consciousness, is able to have the opposite answer?  Where's that logic?

Especially in dealing with things as complex as consciousness.

You have consciousness, and can't really explain it.  You can't explain what you're made out of...what are you made of?

Cause doesn't begin with consciousness, it because with what doesn't have cause, and that is those principles of cause outlined above.

Again, you're shooting your own consciousness in the foot.

Noone knows if anyone has every been "saved" and further to the point noone knows what the norm would be with regards to a person being "saved", simply because there is no way to gather any statistics on such an occurance.

There is no claim to "norm" other than that which God says is His initial idea...at the base of it as is that His created be with Him.

No one knows what the goal is, and no one knows how to get there or if anyone has ever succeded. It's a futile excercise and in my opinion devouting one's life to an unproven path towards an unknown goal puts one's life into a futile existence.

We do know the goal.  The goal is unending life with that which created us.  We do know how to get there and we have reason to believe that others have made it.  (There are a few exceptions in the Bible that have not had to wait for Christ second coming to be with God).  An unproven path?  I can agree here.  It has not been proven to me.  It is faith in evidence.  Much like your "faith" in evidence pointing you a different way.  It's been said that there is enough evidence to believe and just as much to disbelieve.  The difference being  what we put our faith in.  We all have faith...yours may be a faith in science pointing to the proven path yet unknown and my faith pointing to a known, but unproven path.  

But to each his own as long as you don't push your ways on others, and going by your posts, you are pretty tolerant and happy to accept others beliefs or non beliefs.

Pushing it on you would be removing your freedom of will to do as YOU see fit.

In a long term perspective all of our lives are a futile existence anyway, so please don't take that statement as an insult.

I agree.  If you have a proven path pointing every step never knowing where the next step will take you and thus an unknown goal, what is it all for?  Futility.  However as my driving instructor told me many times in high school, it's next to impossible to drive a straight line in a car when all you're focused on is the next 5 feet in front.

[TheJackel]

Not at all.  There is substance to the "I Am" and that is the evidence God has given as to who He is.  *You simply ignore or push it aside and seemingly put your fingers in your ears.  It is not simply a belief in written words/letters in a book.  The belief is the truth found therein.

Wow, and I didn't think you could circle jerk the discussion any further :|  Isn't it funny how "I am" applies to all of us ? or "Existence is" applies to everything that is. You might want to work on your circular argument. Just because you can string two words together doesn't make it evidence for the existence of anything.. It's as ridiculous as  saying "It is", "she is", "he is", "we are", "they are" as a fact based on pure assumption and faith while ignoring why they are impossible to exist (under the attributes Christians like to give to their concept of GOD), or impossible to be without cause... Hell I can say the words "It's not" and just kill that entire argument. And the concept of "I am" wouldn't exist without information either AnimatedDirt. Again you have a causation and a  complexity problem no different than that of our own! So let's explore this further:

I tell you what AnimatedDirt,.. When you can tell us how all of the following things on this list can be designed and created into existence, you can then start talking about the existence of a "GOD"..

* existence = impossible (slave to require)
* intelligence = impossible (Slave to require)
* information = impossible (slave to require)
* knowledge = impossible (slave to require)  
* Material Physicality = impossible (slave to require) Pretty hard to exist as being made of "nothing".
* Experience, and experiences = impossible (slave to be an observer of reality in which it's slave to require in order to have such things) (see also information)
* Ground state of complexity or point zero = impossible (can't really have power, intelligence, Omniscience, divinity, consciousness, or self-awareness at this level)
* Empty Space = impossible ( no space = no capacity, and without capacity there is no place to exist in, or contain anything at all)
* Capacity = impossible ( see space)
* self-awareness = impossible (slave to require, and see information)
* self-identity = impossible (slave to require, and see information)
* consciousness = impossible (salve to requires, and see information)
* a place to exist in = impossible (slave to require, see capacity and space)
* mind containment = impossible (each mind is contained, must have a place to exist) (see capacity, and space, and information)
* light/dark = impossible (it's either ever only dark, light, or a mixture of both)
* infinity = equals impossible to create
* Wisdom = impsossible (slave to require, see information)
* time = impossible (the process to create time would in itself require time)
* The basic 5 senses (hearing, smell, touch, see, taste) = (must require if it is to see anything itself or even reality to which it could observe)
* observation = (slave to require, see information also)
* calculation = (pretty hard to create anything without the ability to process information) (see also information)
* manipulation (slave to require in order to create anything at all)
* thought = impossible (slave to require, see information also)
* perception = impossible (slave to require in order to be conscious)
* reality = impossible (slave to require in order to exist, observe, process, or do anything)
* complexity = impossible (slave to require, see capacity, information)
* cause and effect = impossible (slave to require, see information, capacity, mental processing, reality, complexity, perception, observation, ect)
* Morality
* Cognitive dynamics = impossible ( slave to require)
* Inertia
* Progress / progression = impossible (slave to require to even have a mental process, create, or do anything.. see also time)
* Mental Processing = impossible (slave to require) (see also information)
* Memory = impossible (slave to require in order to know or have a base of knowledge) (see information, capacity, space, self-identity, self-awareness, consciousness ect)
* Oscillation
* intent
* Ability = impossible (slave to require in order to do anything, see also information, mental processing, cognitive behavior, cause and effect)
* Positive, Negative, neutral = impossible (slave to require in order to do anything at all)
* Imagination
* Design
* Point of View
* Life
* mobility
* power
* divinity
* math = imossible (slave to require being 1 above zero, or more complex than zero) (see all the above)

GOD argument = Fail. Too complex to exist without cause!

[Stevil]

None have commented on the one piece of evidence a page or two back.

I am pretty keen to look into this, but have very limited disposable time in my life at the moment. My 1 hour free last weekend was spent watching the WestBro documentary

We do know the goal.  The goal is unending life with that which created us.

I don't think you know the goal, you believe in a goal which is different from knowing.

We do know how to get there

Again, difference between belief and knowing. I think your goal is unattainable because I don't think there is a god and I don't think each individual person's life can be unending.

...and we have reason to believe that others have made it.

But you don't know. There is no way to affirm these beliefs, and no way to know that the path is successful. Your are getting no feedback or data to suggest anything to substantiate or even disprove, just empty silence.

It is faith in evidence.  Much like your "faith" in evidence pointing you a different way.  It's been said that there is enough evidence to believe and just as much to disbelieve.  The difference being  what we put our faith in.  We all have faith...yours may be a faith in science pointing to the proven path yet unknown and my faith pointing to a known, but unproven path.  

I don't have faith in evidence. I am a weak atheist not strong. I am on the "wait until there is proof" stance. Although my base stance for any theory is to assume that the theory is incorrect until proof is provided.