why do you believe in god? - Page 14

Thank you for your warm welcome and the thought you gave to what I wrote. Now to address your input...

quote:

---

In respect to the OPs question, you answered that, pretty much by admitting that you needed to believe in something, and even though you've done this you question the validity of that, while still enjoying the perks of it, and not quite knowing what is absolute.

---

I am not sure what the OP is that you are referring to. I have not yet answered the question of "why do you believe in God?" because I am a person who has not solidified a stance on the matter and can only offer an examination of this process. I was attempting to do what Angelfire suggested when he said,

quote:

---

"You must find support for you supposition that God is necessary, rather then (as Strongclad pointed out) starting with the assumption (or unargued knowledge) that God must exist. "

---

I started by thinking about the necessity of God first by acknowledging that most people seem to ponder the existence of God and how this might support that God is necessary but in the process of questioning that, I ended up diving into the nothingness direction because it took me where I was trying to go much quicker.

I offered an indirect conclusion about if God is necessary by saying that "something" is necessary because nothingness is impossible. I refrained from calling that something god because I am not prepared to support that and imagine that if I could it might only happen after a long process.

You have made an understandable error in your paraphrasing of my conclusion that I hope to clear up. First let us not confuse my use of the word "something" with my use of the word "god". I said that because nothingness is impossible, "something" is a must. Therefore, even though I could not say, "God is necessary" I can say with certainty by replacing the word "god" with the word "something" that because there must always be something since there could never be "nothing" that something is in fact necessary no matter how anyone tries to slice it. This is completely separate from when I later gave a personal anecdote about how as life tore me down I found "I needed to believe in God" because this type of need is different, it refers to needing help. The "something is necessary" type of need holds logical reasoning implications. It is a must; two totally different things making different points. In order to differentiate the statements I can rephrase the anecdotal one by saying, "I found myself in a state where relying on a belief in God was helpful" Then after that I did explain how I question the validity of such beliefs (as you said). I’m not sure why you said “while still enjoying the perks of it” but I think it might have something to do with how I said,

quote:

---

But now that I have revisited the nothingness factor I feel better about believing in something because something is always necessary

---

I think this statement of mine would make most readers think that I mean the same thing when I say “believing in something” (in that instance God, but really I was also referring to the act of believing which I admit was in no way clear in my language) and “something is necessary” (as in a must, because nothingness is impossible), so I must clarify, which I will do again by rephrasing the personal anecdote version of “something”. So to rephrase…

“Now that I have revisited the nothingness factor and can accept as fact that [nothingness is impossible, so therefore something is necessary…a must) I feel better about the act of believing in stuff and relying on faith because I don't think anyone could every explain nothingness and the necessity of somethingness without reaching beyond the scope of natural possibilities and that any explanation anyone would provide would always require some level of faith, aka accepting without proof."

Now after I posted this of course it was on my mind all afternoon and I developed it further. I can hardly wait to share, but I must clarify and validate what I have already said first so please note that I have not finished making that point from the quote above and will get back to it down the line here. I did however attempt to explain that point when I said,

quote:

---

Whatever I believe in, I will always have to rely on some level of faith that either something came from nothing some how or something always existed some how

---

You are correct when you say that I am “not quite knowing what is absolute”. I have only begun to think about what could be absolute, but I intend to develop a claim later on that no matter how much we try to break things down reasonably and rationally we all will end up at a point where there is no rational explanation possible.

You said,

quote:

---

In trying to examine it, you come up with one, somewhat reassuring dilemma - that is, that if you exist, then nothingness can not exist. (correct me if I'm wrong, because to me this seems kind of inconclusive, but it's what I gathered from your words) Also, because we exist, and we exist to think about nothingness, nothingness cannot exist. This too does not make much conclusive sense, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I guess my question is, are you saying that because you cannot fathom a nothingness existing before we existed, that there must have been something there?

---

Yes, that is what I am saying. Let me be bolder with this claim now since I am going to move forward from this position… Whether I exist to fathom nothingness or not, nothingness is impossible and something is a must and it is at this point that all possible reasoning, explanation, understanding, or evidence stops. In other words, nobody can say anything else… everyone must agree to this fact, yet nobody can understand it or explain it any further without reaching beyond the scope of natural possibilities. Could this be that fact which forces us all to consider the super-natural? I think so. That’s why we should start from here. We cannot rule out super-natural possibilities until we can prove that nothingness is possible.

You asked if I claimed,

quote:

---

it is as reasonable to conclude that the Christian God is the creator, just as it is to conclude that nothing was there?

---

I don’t know if it is reasonable to conclude that the Christian God is the creator, but I do think that harboring belief without proof (having faith) is more reasonable than thinking there was nothing since nothing is absolutely impossible.

You then asked if I thought it was reasonable to conclude,

quote:

---

that everything must come from something, and since we definitely exist, and we are something, then something must have created us?

---

I don’t know if it is reasonable to say that everything must come from something (which is definitely something we should get into) and therefore I would not conclude that we must have been created. I would start the “everything must come from something” argument by pointing out that scientific explanations for the natural world are always developed through evidence of things like cause and effect, origins, correlations, evolutions, etc. All these things I mention relate to existence. C exists because A affected B. The existence of D began here. We conclude G because E existence factors into F existence. H has existed in IJKL an M stages. Science is based on observation and we can only observe what exists, therefore anything that relates to existence must be implicated in science.

We have established that nothingness relates to existence until someone says otherwise, so I am going to make the claim that all scientific explanations based on observable evidence from existence will lead to a dead end if it keeps looking for a genesis point because doing so will lead to a debate about nothingness. From this I would conclude that if science is ever going to be able to dispel all “myths” of faith, it needs to explain why there must be something in existence and why there simply cannot be nothing at all. Science always seems (I could be wrong) to explain how something came to be from something else (eg. the earth was not created by God how the bible said, it was a ball of lava that cooled and all these elements came together to make the seas and life sprung from the seas [not sure how that is explained] and humans evolved from fish etc.) there are many theories and some great evidence to support some of them and I count them all as reasonable explanations, but science never tries to claim that anything simply was just there because it cannot explain how it got there. It leaves the question open for further research kind of like the teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, “anyone… anyone?” I don’t think even science can reasonably expect “anyone” to explain why nothingness is impossible and what this means about our existence. We can break everything down to the smallest unit and examine how it all came together, but we can never explain how it got there, or if it was always there, then how it was defined to be what it is… sheesh, don’t even let me implicate time into this. I have gone too far already.

Then you say,

quote:

---

You present a lot of arguments, and I don't fully understand some of them, and don't know what argument you clearly stand behind as the most potent conclusive statement that supports your beliefs.

---

In order to decipher a conclusive statement to support “my beliefs” let’s first define the belief I can conclusively attempt to support. I cannot conclusively support any belief I might have in God and I might be working on that task for the rest of my life. I have only attempted to conclusively support my “belief” that there must be something (as in somethingness is necessary) and that this is a matter of indisputable fact because nothingness is impossible.

Now I get to tell you about where I went with this after I posted and this is where it gets really sticky. If you go to this point in your mind trying to think it through you might find yourself thinking about it while doing things around the house and just freeze once you accept that nothingness is impossible. It’s like the end of all possible reasoning. This end of all reasoning thought reminded me of when God said in the Bible that He was the Alpha and the Omega
(now please don’t assume that I am bringing this up as proof of God because this concept appears in the Bible because I am not trying to prove God and I don’t think I ever will because I am actually going in a direction that claims there is something about existence that can never be proved with reason, I hinted at this in my last post that at some point no matter what evidence is uncovered or how anyone explains it, all roads will lead to the same dead end that the impossibility of nothingness creates)
Which leads me back to the alpha and the omega. This is usually thought about as the beginning and the end of time, but now I see its relevance to the beginning and the end of all possible reasoning, explanation, and dispute. Earlier I said that the impossibility of nothingness is like the end of all reasoning so I want to advance that as a claim…

“Of all the laws of the universe the first law is that there must be” (admittedly debatable so have at it… be my guest)

Kind of a more lofty way of saying “somethingness is a must”, but shoot this is a huge big deal that deserves lofty language in my opinion.

So if existence is the first law then I would reasonably assume that all other laws would lead back to it therefore making it the last law if you trace everything back (also debatable, again have at it). The end all be all so to speak. The alpha and the omega.

Then I started thinking about how interesting it was that people from so long ago without all the scientific evidence I have at my disposal wrote about the same thing. Some think God told them, others think people wrote it. I don’t know and I don’t care. What I do know is that I also came to a point of alpha+omega by means of as much indisputable logic my ability to reason permits. And this alpha+omega point landed me in a place where I could conceive of no further reasoning. A dead end. So I invite anyone to find a way out of this. Give me some reason this place does not matter or about another place we should be going because I am convinced that everything starts and ends with the law that “There must be”

Now for the personal anecdote part of what I have to offer not to be confused with any attempts to provide valid reasoning. Remember I brought up the quantitative and qualitative aspects of science. Well the combination of the two is often respected because, among other effects, it can clarify and lead to further questions that need to be explored which is why I also offer it here and invite others to provide their own anecdotes to compliment their reasoning…. So I said that the impossibility of nothingness is like the end of all reasoning and advanced a claim that “Of all the laws of the universe the first law is that there must be”. Ok, so for me this is where my faith is born because this is where the possibility of any natural explanation begins and ends and therefore may be an indication that super-natural explanations could exists, or may even have to exist. I am at a place where even if anything that can be observed by man can be explained, there is always going to be this point where we are going to have to take someone’s word for it. That we are going to have to rely on faith. And I find it interesting how the God of the Bible says this. How Christians claim it’s all about the word of God in the end and that we all need to practice faith. I am thinking this might be more logical than it seems to be on the surface. And like I tried to explain in my last post… The fact that all reason for existence begins and ends with “there must be” and I can’t get any further than that and don’t think anyone else could ever get around it either…this is why I feel better about having to rely on faith of some kind… because there is no way around it for anyone. Think about it.

Ironwood:

quote:

---

Nothing absolutely exists.

Can't you see it, its right there, I'll even show you again.

Nothing. Its a word, it exists. Its a concept, it exits.

---

The concept exists, the word exists, but I'm not talking about concepts and words. I am talking about how even in the complete absence of all physical matter, there is still existence.

quote:

---

But nothing is not allowed to exist... oh? Make sure to read that from multiple perspectives.

---

Nothing is impossible because existence is eternal and existence is something.

quote:

---

Does infinity exist? Oops, obviously, its right there. Well, the concept of infinite everything includes infinite nothing, simultaneously.

---

Infinite everything is probable so can you please describe the infinite nothing that infinity includes.

quote:

---

This my friend is where you must come to terms with paradox.

---

If by "coming to terms with paradox" you mean resolving statements that seem to defy logic, I'm down.

quote:

---

You will come to a more comfortable place in your desire for peace through faith when you explore more the definitions and ideas of what this oh so loaded word "god" is.

By generally monotheistic definition, god is all. All something all nothing and all paradox, the holy trinity that is actually a singularity muddled by duality. You have been compromised, divided and conquered, by yourself, for you are god.

Don't look to mans words so much for the answer, just the path. When you stop questioning and simply be still, all is revealed.

You have already asked the questions, now its time to listen for the answers.

---

Yet I can glean no resolve from any of this. What say we take it slow for my sake and forget about the concept of god or any religion associated with it? Let us focus on the paradox that existence and nothingness creates.

Do you think it is reasonable to conclude that existence is necessary so therefore nothingness is impossible?

Baeuphemia,

Let me ask you directly what it is that you are concluding to have faith in exactly, your belief in the impossibility of nothing and the idea that something must be?

I am also unsure of your idea of just what you think supernatural is, especially in reference to you faith and your logic.

I understand that no one can rationally and reasonably explain, by the limits of human conception and even more limited scientific analysis of what little can be perceived and measured, why anything exists or could always have existed if indeed nothing was impossible.

Im hoping that I have confused a reading of nothing being impossible at some point with nothingness being impossible because they are complete opposite points.

Now I notice how you haven't yet addressed paradox, another existing and noted word, concept, and existing scientific reality. Understood? Dear god no, but that's what we are talking about, that what cannot be conceived by limited human minds based on limited scientific experiencial and logic based data.

So, help me out here.

If nothingness was impossible than existance would have to be infinite, making the big bang theory rediculously invalid as there could be no nothingness void into which to expand. Neither here nor there as you haven't referenced the event claim anyway.

But if existance is infinite as your model of the impossibility of nothingess demands, then it must come with everything that infinity includes. Like nothingness and paradox all existing and not existing simultaneously in direct contradiction of all sensibility.

This is part of why I asked about your perception of natural and supernatural.

In my experience people, as you seem to have possibly done, just refer to that which lies beyond common sense standard empirically measurable reason. As I think I read you mention.

But I for one certainly do not consider human perception as the boundary of nature or that which is natural.

Nor do I have much faith in the minds of scientists with their arrogantly limited definitives that have always been challenged and eventually overturned. Fact one day archaic nonsense the next, heresy one day fact the next, ad nauseum.

So again, what are you finding faith in? Will you acknowledge paradox and where it fits in you reasoning?

And can you deny the logic of this statement.

If nothingness is impossible then existance is infinite, making nothing impossible and in fact making all things mandatory, and if nothing is impossible then nothingness has to exist by default.

I don't agree that the concepts of existance and nothingness are mutually exclusive. That is a limited notion.

Nothingness cannot be properly comprehended by the limited human mind any more than infinity can. And if it cannot be comprehended then it cannot be defined or quantified and used as a definitive in any arguement. That would be unreasonable and unscientific, as much scientific conclusion is.

Interesting timing, hopefully my post covers your ultimate question to me, but ill reiterate and answer directly that no, I absolutely do not agree on your nothingness is impossible notion. But respectfully so. And am willing to further clarify to the best of my ability should you desire any questions answered.

Let me ask you this, what is your current leaning probability of what happens when we die? I assure you it is relevant.

I will add here that you be careful as a concept has more reality and existance than you may be aware.

I am very familiar with the still budding study of quantum physics and consciousness in terms of their relation to existance.

What we conceive of, exists. A thought exists, does it not? You may argue.that it doesn't exist physically, and I will gladly challenge that if you do.

A movie image physically exists a photons etc even though the images portrayed are not three dimensional in comparison to their filmed counterparts. But I assure you the image is actually three dimensional, and beyond, even though its on a two dimensional surface as we claim it to be. But that's another point of near semantic arguement.

But what we see in our minds is not nonexistant or taken from the discussion. And just because its beyond comprehension doesn't mean it doesn't exist either even if only perceived conceptually.

So I insist that it must be addressed from this perspective or you will never find your answers and continue to potentially be contradicting yourself.

Infinity does not make nothingness irrelevant.

And regardless of any helpfulness of a separate thread, I would ask if decius thought nothingness possible or not in the face of his statement of the possibility of infinity.

My understanding of infinity includes infinite nothingness through paradox, a still unaddressed perspective.

But alas, god boy wont talk to me for he thinketh me insane and apparently his perspectives beyond my reproach. For he tends to air on arrogant self idolotry.

So feel free to ask him yourself if you desire, for I would like to know too.

I can't get to everything at once but I want to address this great question at least...

quote:

---

what it is that you are concluding to have faith in exactly, your belief in the impossibility of nothing and the idea that something must be?

---

No, my belief (confidence in the truth of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof) in the impossibility of nothingness is not what I concluded to have faith in. I regard that as more of a probably truth which would not require faith. Faith, defined as a confidence or trust in a person or thing, would not be appropriate to have for something I already believe is probable. Trust would be required for things I would be less sure of.

In this case I concluded that faith (mere trust in unprovable shit) might be required for any explanation there could be for existence because of that dang nothingness/existence paradox. When I say "this is where my faith is born" I mean that because of that point in my thinking where nothingness becomes impossible, I can no longer rule out the possibility of super-natural explanations for existence. Now, super-natural explanations for existence would require faith because I would be much less sure of those.

Note well, I did not conclude to have faith that there can only be super-natural explanations for existence because making that leap would not be logical. I am merely acknowledging that the way I am thinking about existence and nothingness is leading me in a metaphysical direction (the philosophical inquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence) This is something I would like to avoid because in order to conclude if faith is necessary, there must be an absence of more believable explanations. Reasons that don't require so much trust... reasons that seem more provable and therefore probable.

quote:

---

I am also unsure of your idea of just what you think supernatural is, especially in reference to you faith and your logic.

---

The following definitions for supernatural apply best to the context by which I was using it...

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces

I also just interchanged that supernatural with metaphysical above.

quote:

---

I will add here that you be careful as a concept has more reality and existance than you may be aware.

---

I am very interested in how a concept might have more reality and existence than I might be aware, as you point out. But in any attempt to prove or disprove the necessity of mere faith in super-natural explanations for existence, I would think to avoid as much intangible subjects as possible. However, I would be glad to think along these lines with someone who can present it logically toward truth. Perhaps it is these concepts that can get me beyond this metaphysical road block I am at presently.

I will have to get into the rest of your points at a later time. To be continued...

OK, I will do that. Definitely went outside the scope of this thread. But I want to address this right quick since I am going to have to get into this with Ironwood as well...

quote:

---

I believe that you should integrate the concept of infinity into your thoughts regarding this, because I feel that is the main opposition to your argument - that is to say that you conclude nothingness is impossible because you do not fathom that infinity is possible, because if infinity is possible, that means there is no beginning and end, and never was - nothingness becomes irrelevant then

---

If I conveyed that I don't think infinity is possible I did not mean to. Ironwood introduced infinity into the mix which is the first time I considered it in my thoughts about nothingness. I actually think it may be the reason for or as a result of nothingness being impossible. If nothingness is impossible that means there has always been things in existence... sounds pretty infinite to me so I don't see how infinity opposes nothingness at all. I'm see it more as a compliment. Infinity and the impossibility of nothingness are holding hands skipping through the universe eternally is the image that comes to mind. On the other hand this Ironwood's introduction of infinate nothingness does seem to oppose it if I can figure out what it means or get him to explain it better...

quote:

---

My understanding of infinity includes infinite nothingness through paradox, a still unaddressed perspective.

---

We shall address it my friend, don't get your spidy-senses in a tizzy now. Hey what's with calling him god boy? Well I respect both of youz guys' input so I hope y'all will squash whatever it is that manifested this 'lil fit. -later

First I would like to address this presented definition of supernatural.

I think it is an invalid term unless directly regarding a persons limited perspective and comprehension.

I submit that nothing is supernatural, all is merely natural regardless of any boundaries creating by man that it exceeds.

If infinity exists naturally than everything is natural.

Probable is not going to be in the cards for your search I'm afraid, not in terms of probable to others. Truth is as subjective as it is objective. Untill one experiences truth themselves then everything thing else is speculation regardless of rigidity of scientific methods.

And no one can make another see truth, regardless of truth being presented, I can show you a cat and you may still see a dog.

The intangible is not a boundary to be avoided, lest radio waves, ultraviolet light etc be ignored regardless of its factuality. Nay, I say it must be the first explored and attempted to be refuted. But it must be put aside when dealing with basic practicality of physical things, but never ignored or forgotten and still used as reference.

I do apologize for my posts being less organized as cell phones lack certain functionality that would keep my thoughts more clearly organized in presentation.

Are you familiar with the developments of consciousnesses role in manifesting reality, from physics, quantum not meta, though I am fairly sure there will be no distinguishment in time.

This is a factual scientific discovery that is at the core of my point of concepts having more physicality and reality.

Plus, not to mention even in the physical world these thoughts can be measured energetically though not fully or fully understood.

Empirical science is a wonderful thing, untill its limited measured conclusions are superimposed on infinite reality as a unimpeachable universal law.

You must not fear letting loose and treading where others fear, not that I think you do, but you are just coming to that crossroads.

I would even ask that you pay more attention to your dreams and senses that you often have to disregard in order to remain rigid in your quest for empirical truth.

They can be kept separate, don't worry, there is that which you can see and measure and that which you can only subjectively experience, but they both equally exist and are all indeed ultimately subjective experiences thus unifying them anyway.

Another scientist can make all the discoveries in the world but your knowledge and experience of that information or those claims will only be experienced subjecrively by you, physically mentally etc.

Once you lucid dream and speak to your subconscious or have an out of body experience you will understand where I am coming from.

So don't fight so hard to stay objective, that's impossible in your limited physical reality model, it denies the subjectiveness of YOU attemtping to remain objective.

Instead, continue your search for objective empirical reality by also embracing the unknowable as part of infinite reality and therefore necessary for.the completion of any model.

Because untill you can truly comprehend infinity, you cannot hope to comprehend the answers to your questions.

Don't worry about any feud talk, this place has years of history, there are lots of threads and discussions that attempt to address it. Offhand just know that my challenges are thrown in to address why one thinks as they do, the other half of any arguement, something I no longer have the.luxury of addressing to decius directly.

But feel free to intervene, because why we think what we do and how is always on topic in this forum imo, because this forum is about self discovery and improvent as well as knowledge exchange and idea enhancement.

Nothingness is no less inconceivable than infinity, period. Therefore to use one undefinable, as something incomprehensible cannot be definitively defined, can in no way be used to argue.against another unfathomable idea.

That's practicing self deluded limited and biased practices.

That's why god conversations can't end. Because people are trying to define something they cannot explain with something they cannot hope to understand. Its absurd.

That's why I refer to god as all and or the source. And since we are all the same energy and all of the same source and collective all, that I say you are god, as is he and I.

Not to be confused with my god boy jab. And before you or anyone else thinks my jabs rude, unwarranted or out of place, you must take in mind that ignoring and cowardly calling someone or their ideas insane indirectly is quite more nefarious and the source of my actions.

I have the balls to stand up to those I don't agree with and defend or amend my positions for the sake of alls benefit, including my own.

I cannot say the same for him, but for your benefit, know also that I care about him quite a bit, and so I challenge without end untill he faces me once again. He knows as well as I do that and understanding is inevitable unless someone simply chooses not to agree for whatever reason. But no agreements can be made when one runs and hides instead of perfectly reasonably conversing.

Nothingness, if it existed, would be infinite, would it not? Therefore infinite nothingness.

To accept and claim infinity to exclude something like nothingness is a source of my challenge to the notion. But nothingness isn't something right? Again, beware defining the incomprehensible and equally infinite with limited definitives.

Infinity exists as a concept and so does nothingness, however the two concepts seem to contradict. Yet they both exist, at least as concepts.

Oh, and quickly offhand trying to defeat the concept of nothingness with the semantic wordplay of the equally untenable notion of empty space is not valid. You cannot properly define empty space any better, especially in the face of infinite reality that seems so much easier for so many to accept, still without truly viable definition or comprehension.

I will likely never be able to answer you ultimately about my strong feelings about nothingness, but I will try my best.

But untill I have more questions or thoughts I will end again saying...

Infinity is incomprehensible, so is nothingness, one cannot therefore be used to rule the other out. That is absurd.

The notion that we exist, which is actually debatable, like it or not, is the tipping factor is equally untenable. It is akin to the arguement that a definitive christian god exists because we do and even moreso because there is a book that tells us so.

Its leading the logic. I understand it, but it doesn't make it true. And if a limited human can come to a concluded (ended) understanding of something about an incomprehensible unending infinitude, then its probably wrong.

Given that I don't exist, I'm left to wonder who he is talking to, anywho.

Nothingness cannot be properly defined as it is an incomprehensible concept, just as infinity is. You may think there is a valid definition of infinity bet almost guarantee you that you are wrong.

I actually covered this partially by saying a conclusion with and end result cannot contain an endless infinity.

And existance doesn't contradict nothingness in my model because paradox allows both.

I have and still argue that the current best interpretations of infinity catagorically DEMAND that nothingness also exists, and even exists infinitely.

There is no way to quantify and understand paradox that I am aware, any more than the concepts of infinity and nothingness.

Oddly, yet we do understand them, to a degree, but apparently not everyone understands the limitations of our understandings and what that implies for our attempted definitions and usages.

I don't think infinity and nothing contradict as easily it seems. Again, I'm arguing infinity must include nothingness, as it definitely does in conceptual theory.

Just as the number zero exists within infinite mathematics, and indeed must.

In attempt to elaborate more on the concepts of infinity, nothingness and paradox.

I still find it interesting that like god, some people can feel comfortable with accepting such a notion as infinity without really thinking about just what it is or means. Especially to the point of using it to argue against other equally incomprehensible notions.

You see, infinity as a concept in itself is paradoxical. How so?

Think about this. Thinking of infinity as a never ending inclusion of everything isn't too bad, minus the never ending or beggining part. But there is more to it than that.

For those who argue against nothingness in light of their perception of infinity, infinite something must infinitely occupy all space at all times, still not too bad.

But here is where it gets tricky, within an infinite reality, all things must be infinite as well.

A math example is to state that within an infinite number system there are also infinite amounts of an individual number.

If I do a 1+2 equation those numbers don't get used up and stop existing. There is an infinite number of the number 1.

Translate that to physical reality and something like an orange, and that's a shit ton of oranges. But, as infinity demands, even a single orange must in itself be I.finite for within infinity you cannot pick parts of infinity that are not equally infinite.

So if a single orange must occupy all space at all times, how are you supposed to exist or anything else? Paradox.

So again, it is no more unreasonable to accept nothingness within infinity than it is to accept infinity or god, who is generally referee to as infinite.

I am trying to see where you (Ironwood) is coming from with your understanding of quantum physics, infinity and all that, but I don't know enough about it to understand what you are talking about completely.

quote:

---

The notion that we exist, which is actually debatable, like it or not, is the tipping factor is equally untenable.

---

I do not question if we exist. Not sure why you think it is debatable. If I knew what you knew I might be able to continue this discussion, but I cannot not glean much concrete meaning from what you are explaining. Perhaps you are going over my head. Perhaps I am bias to my own opinion at this point, but your stance on existence is a clear divergence from what I think. I still think nothingness is impossible.

So to Decius:

quote:

---

I think the discussion of "nothingness" has to begin with the definition of it. It borders on being a self-defeating statement of sorts because, by definition, even the word existing is in opposition of its meaning.

---

lack of being; nonexistence?
complete absence of matter?

I read the following here:
http://www.nothingnesstheory.com/

On a cosmic scale, as the universe redistributes itself evenly through the inexorable pull of entropy, it approaches expanded nothingness. On a macroscopic scale, as matter aggregates into larger and larger bodies until they collapse in upon themselves, the nothingness of compressed uniformity is approached. This tension between infinite cycles of compressed and expanded uniformity endows the universe with its particular form.

Maybe this is what Ironwood is drawing from but when I read about the expanding nothingness and entropy being like the fading of a sound wave into no sound that is not the the nothingness I speak of. That nothingness come from the spreading out of everything until it is nothing, but there was still something before the nothing. I'm talking about nothing before there was anything to spread out that is impossible. The nothingness in these types of theories talk about the redistribution of things creating spans of nothingness in other places. That's not what I am tripping about. These ideas of nothingness support existence somewhere at some point. I am talking about nothing ever. Why is this so unreasonable to say it is not possible. Even "nothingness theory" supports existence with eternal existence at the same time. The only true nothingness about this theory is that it really says nothing. So what? I still want to know where all the shit that expands and redistributes came from in the first place. Or if it was always there what defined it to "BE" what it is. And if there is no explanation or really intellectual conceptual sophists don't find a need to reason beyond a theory such as this then it just proves my point. I am not saying there IS god because nothingness (as I define it) is impossible, but I think people believe in god because such is inconceivable. And whoever does conceive of it conceptually sounds really cool and evolved but still just as indefinite as any other theory. None of which address the issue of: If there was no matter then there was still space. if there was ever no matter, where did the matter that is here now come from? if there was always matter then there was never nothingness and back to the beginning... if there was no matter at some point there was still space. Yeah it goes in a circle but it still proves my point. complete nothingness is impossible as long as you agree that time and space and we exist. If you don't then you are probably god.

quote:

---

It (nothingness is impossible) borders on being self-defeating statement of sorts because, by definition, even the word existing is in opposition of its meaning.

---

Even if the word didn't exists or people to think about it didn't exists it does not matter. That's like how if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it still made a sound because we know it still created the vibrations which ears would pick up if they were there. We know matter exists so we can think about how it came to be but even if we were not here to think about it, matter still has a history. When was matter, not? if nothingness is possible then how did matter appear? Just forget it. There is no answer and that is my whole point. Whatever anyone thinks is the answer they are relying on some level of trust in some theory they cannot prove and the provable ones don't explain all the mysteries away. I should have kept this more simple.

quote:

---

I still find it interesting that like god, some people can feel comfortable with accepting such a notion as infinity without really thinking about just what it is or means. Especially to the point of using it to argue against other equally incomprehensible notions.

---

You brought in the incomprehensible notion of infinity. not sure whether or not you claim to understand it. are you saying that just because I cannot comprehend nothingness does not make impossible? Well it's incomprehensibility does not rule out it's impossibility either and what you have offered no more proves that it must be possible either so can you at least agree that arguments like this might be why people believe in god? that was the initial question. not if it was reasonable to do so. maybe that is why this was suggested to go to a different thread because this is a debate about if nothingness is possible now. no need to talk about god anymore in this discourse. should I copy and paste this stuff on that thread or start all over? I'm gonna start fresh so god is clear of the discussion since that makes some people more defensive than they need to be.

just found this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

Being uncommitted sucks, but thank you for helping me establish a conviction... peACE!

Existance is a paradox, that is why it is debatable.

Your notion that nothingness is impossible, the point I take issue with given your self contradicting logic.

Because nothingness is no less sensible than an ever existing reality. Neither make practical sense.

So why you can feel conviction in such a thought is beyond me.

I don't claim anything for sure, my closest probability that I ascribe is infinite paradox, all things are right and wrong, and do and don't exist simultaneously.

Any limited notion seems less likely.

To answer if I think these incomprehensible ideas are why people believe in god, that still demands a definition.

But in part, of course. The only reason people believe in a christian god is because they were told to. The defined christian god of origin likely does not match up to any version of it ever spoken to a second person let alone the masses interpretting and manipulating it past any true revelation or divined definition.

Fear and sought love are the main reasons for any pursuit or belief.

For someone like myself at this stage I find myself believing that there are simply forces beyond me, yet within me as I am part of the whole, the source, whatever that is.

I am of the notion that to the best of my knowledge, I in this limited human form did not create myself or this universe, but I allow for the possibility that I am wrong.

Your idea of physicality alluded to by the tree falling example is challenged by quantum physics. Schroedingers cat is the example to look into.

Like a video game matter does not exist in a physical state untill it is observed and intended into form.

This notion becomes complicated by the closest thing to your point of physical matter having history, there are multiple observers, and all energy is likely conscious.

This is but one level of energetic density. There are forces unknown and unseen that influence everything else. This is why limited human models and laws will always eventually crumble, something always ends up doing what it isn't supposed to because we limit reality foolishly.

Its not impractical to make such models and laws for practical use within this density, but it is retarded to limit all reality to them.

As soon as you say something is impossible, that's usually when you are wrong. And that is my issue with your definitive statement.