Before God and the universe

[Terran]

Does God exist? Where did God come from? What existed before God? How was the universe created? What existed before the universe? What is the meaning of life? I can answer all these questions and more!

First of all, I am not religious. I simply pursue the truth. It is ignorance (a choice) to blindly and fully accept or deny everything in the world's largest religion, Christianity. No doubt, it has been modified and parts of it are copied from older religions. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that there is at least some truth behind it, lost in history. The only honest truth about God is that there is no decent evidence for or against its existence. No-one can honestly claim that there is or is not a God. I propose an idea that there may in fact be a God, and that there is a reason why God remains anonymous and only ever operates through proxies.

Before God existed, there was a paradox. Something cannot exist, if it wasn't first created by something. Therefore nothing existed. But for nothing to exist, nothing is a something, and an absolute. So neither nothing nor something can exist, only a paradox between the two. From that paradox, a random flux of incoherent chaos evolved in growing complexity and coherence. Different basic concepts phased in and out of existence, independent of each other and outside any concept of time. From countless possibilities, certain concepts were more stable than others. Eventually, coherence took shape and the different concepts began interacting with each other. As they interacted with each other, they created temporary timelines independent of each other, like bubbles of multi-dimensional space time. Time is nothing more than the order of interacting forces. But these forces fizzled out, in and out of existence. As the chaos interacted with itself, logic took shape. Different concepts became stable. From the chaos, the same stable patterns repeatedly phased into existence. They multiplied and interacted in basic ways, such as mass. Objects of coherence, gravitate toward coherence and away from chaos, creating the effect of mass. From within the evolving chaos, a repeating pattern emerged, the first life, the birth of God. This pattern became an achor for the chaos, and the basic coherence within the chaos gravitated toward it. The pattern became the focal point of all coherence. As it drew coherence from the chaos, it became more complex over time. It began to evolve, inside and outside of any coherence of time. Like a sun that draws dust and eventually ignites, the pattern eventually sparked to light the first consciousness. It eventually learned to draw from the chaos in such a way that it could manifest from the building blocks within the chaos. The pattern evolved to the very end of evolution itself, operating inside and outside of any relative time. It began to master the practice of creation from the chaos. And so God became God, evolved from chaos, created from a paradox.

Our universe might not be the first universe to exist. It is said in the Christian Bible that there is a son of God, and there are angels. These might have been created by universes of their own, running their own course. Our universe however came from a focal point where a certain traceable intervention happened. In the Christian Bible, it says that in the beginning the Earth was a formless mass cloaked in darkness. I propose that the mass was not God's creation, but the building blocks from chaos that God used to create the universe. And then god created light, which gave form to the mass. And that is exactly what light does. Light is made up of photons. When photons are compressed from a chaotic state, they make stable electrons. Electrons orbit the formless mass, protons and neutrons. Electrons orbit mass and repulse each other, seperating the mass and giving form to it.

I propose that our universe was not a sudden creation from chaos. Such a creation would be incoherent and go through many attempts and evolutions. Our universe is precisely functional. That suggests that either our universe is the current result out of many, or there was an intervention that manipulated the basic components that evolved from chaos. All research into this matter suggests a focal point of intervention. This fits exactly with what the Christian Bible says about the creation of the light principle, the principle that gives form to mass.

By studying the reality of the universe, we can see the same patterns appearing over and over on different scales. An electron orbits a nucleus, in the same way as planets orbit suns and moons orbit planets. The same branching out of lightning can be seen in the branching out of a tree, or the branching out of evolution. The same network design is seen from the neurons of a brain and the distribution of the universe. The creation of life itself is not a freak of nature, but the nature of the universe. The same process of evolution in life, resembles the same process of evolution God went through from chaos. The principles of God are imprinted within the principles of the universe, and reveal themselves through life's evolution. Life and the universe is a simulation and recreation of God's creation and evolution from chaos, a process by which God creates other gods.

So why doesn't God directly interact with the universe? For God to do that, would damage the complexity of the universe and make it sterile and uniform. I propose that God has intervened here and there, and it has manifested as occurences such as the 11:11 phenomenon. I propose that lesser created gods have also intervened, also creating this phenomenon and sending ripples of uniformality like a finger dipped in a bucket of water. If God and its previous creations are advanced evolutions of coherence and uniformality, then they have a direct impact upon anything in a flux of chaos they interact with. So God and its lesser creations can only interact in limited ways, and only in rare situations. Anything more would permanently damage the complexity of the universe. And for God to force life to obey its principles, would override the whole purpose of life, which is to evolve other gods. For life to evolve into godhood, it must come to the same independent realisations of logic and coherence, just as God did. Otherwise it becomes a lifeless puppet to God's will. The key is that it has to be independent. Life must evolve from chaos, as God did, and reach the same conclusions independently. Evolution is a self creating learning process that is still in progress.

I put forward the idea that God is not truly omnipotent. God cannot conjure anything from nothing. God can however conjure things into reality by manipulating coherence from within chaos. I propose that our universe was created by creating a new component from within the chaos to interact with pre-existing mass. The very word God means Tetra-gramma-ton. Tetra means four. Gramma means gram, a small measure of weight. Ton means large empty space or palette. The word God means 'the four small measures of weight within the empty space', or the four basic components of the universe interacting with each other. There just happens to be four known forces that define the universe. And one of those forces being the intervening electrical force that gives form to mass. Since God is order evolved from chaos, God cannot be chaotic. God cannot create something from nothing, but can recreate itself by manipulating the pre-existing coherence from within chaos.

Evil is a reversion of progressed order back to chaos, the very opposite of life's objective. It is the corruption and destruction of life and its objective to evolve. Evil is de-evolution, reverting to the primitive and chaotic. Evil is the vandalism of life's objective to evolve into Godhood.

It's important to note the issue of 'faith'. Jesus taught about a different type of faith, faith that could move mountains. 'Believers' choose to believe that belief and imagination can manifest nothing into reality. But that isn't how it works. Faith uses coherence that is already there from within chaos, else you are summoning chaos from chaos. A person of true faith will make use of what is really there, by picking up a shovel and start digging. They will eventually move the mountain through real, hard work. This person believes IN doing it, and so they will work hard and actually do it. A person of false faith will choose to believe that belief and imagination itself can manifest out of absolutely nothing. The true way, operates out of coherence. The false way, operates out of chaos. This is why Jesus taught a certain TYPE of faith, and that this faith can move mountains even if it is as small as a mustard seed.

The lack of a pattern in prime numbers and the number pi, reveals that our universe is not a fully constructed order out of chaos. The very concept of logic and the rules of the universe are only partly founded on order. They are still chaotic in their form. That suggests that the universe, even the very laws that guide it, are not fully constructed. The observation of the universe expanding shows that the universe wasn't created in a single event, but a process of evolving order out of chaos. The universe wasn't created, but still in the process of being created. The same process can be seen in the evolution of life, which is nothing more than the evolution of the universe running its course. As life has a point of origin, so does the birth of suns and so does the birth of the universe. These are specific points of critical mass where the evolution of chaos turns to order. The same critical mass can be seen in the most basic components of atoms, where chaotic energy is funneled into whirlpools of order. The same pattern can be seen in the whirlpool of galaxies and the eye of a storm. The nature of God in the Christian Bible is rarely mentioned, but it is mentioned a few times, describing God as a whirlwind. And everything from atoms to galaxies function on the same whirlwind principle.

I could say a lot on the matter, but I hope you get the gist of it. Evidence points toward both a slowly evolving coherence from chaos, and an intervention that spontaneously created the universe. There is a big gap between chaos and the order of the universe. This suggests a third party force of intervention. And the imprint of the intervention can be observed by studying the nature of the universe. To learn about God, is to learn about the nature of the universe and how the same principles appear on different scales and reveal themselves in evolution. Concepts such as morality and the difference between truth and lies, are learned through evolution. Evolution inevitably leads to the same conclusion of Godhood. It is very likely that because of logic, the same evolutions can happen on different planets independent of each other. The same basic structure of highly evolved life, two arms, two legs, a head, two eyes etc. These evolutions are the result of logic playing itself out. What works, works. What doesn't, doesn't. The form by which life inevitably evolves toward, is the form of a new, independently created God, based on the foundational principles set by the original God. And in the original verses in the Bible that refer to God, it is not singular but plural, and a plural that operates through the tetragrammaton, which is not one but the interaction of four forces. A plural that operates through four forces, a son, 8 arch angels and many billions of other angels, isn't a singular entity. It may however be a plural that can at least sometimes act as a unified force. There may or may not be a God, but the nature of the universe suggests that something or someone did intervene, and the nature of that which intervened is imprinted into the nature of everything in the universe, especially life itself. If there is a God, that God is probably not the same God as believed in mainstream religions. The very word God has been twisted and used as an umbrella term that describes many different things. It is a fill in word, where the original words cover a wide variety of different groups and individuals. Some things attributed to God, might in fact be God. Other things attributed to God, are not God but another third party that has been mislabeled as God. Therefore when God said this and did that, we are talking about very different groups and individuals all operating in the name of God. Anyone can speak in the name of God, but who can tell which voice is the true one? There is one way to know. Learn the nature of the universe. Understand the principles of logic. Use the tools given to you through evolution. Create order from the chaos. Reason is the point of critical mass where life can finally meet God. And reason is the very thing that mainstream religions lead their followers away from. The only true voice is the one that withstands the fire of debate. 

It's important to note that none of this speaks for or against the concept of an afterlife. For there to be an afterlife, there must be a significant intervention upon or after death. Without that intervention, consciousness dissipates back into chaos. It is a sad but true fact that we all must face. However, since energy and the base components of the universe are eternal and nothing is ever wasted, why would consciousness be an exception to that rule? It is said in the Christian Bible that the dead stay dead, until a moment of intervention that brings all life back into being. All life is then to be sorted and distributed according to their works. I suggest that such an intervention is plausible, but can only happen at the end of evolution. Anything before that, will be like plucking a harvest before its time. And that is the very same terminology used in the Bible. The intervention itself will permanently damage or destroy the structure of the universe, and can only be done once the universe has run its course. I also suggest that we were never meant to know for sure whether there is an afterlife. Knowledge of it, would make us immortal and change the way we live our lives. Through mortality, we reveal our true colours and live for today, contributing to the progress of evolutionary heritage. The mysteries of life and death are hidden for the purpose of revealing the imprinted, hidden nature of life. By revealing the hidden nature of life, life has the capacity to flower into godhood. It isn't that we were never meant to know and understand, but that we were never meant to know and understand until the right disposition evolved true intellectual enlightenment. Mainstream religion can therefore be considered a corruption of that principle. It is a combination of knowledge that we were never meant to know yet, mixed with half truths and outright lies to deceive and lead evolution astray. Have not all religions intentionally manipulated the path of evolution, for better and worse? The same can be said for all ideologies, religious or otherwise (and that includes Anarchism). Ideologues are a corruption of nature, the very threat to life. They seek to discredit, erase and override the heritage of human nature and evolution, and replace it with their ideology, using mankind like puppets, clay to bend and mold to their own will. Ideologues have sold out their heritage, and no longer operate as part of the tree of life. It is not for mankind to subjugate nature with ideologies, but to learn about itself by understanding and living by the principles of nature. Ideologies are toys for wayward, intellectual children. Ideas don't need the pedestal and rigid conformity of an ideology. True ideas stand on their own right, in the fire of debate.

[barn]

Hi @Terran

Sorry, tldr.

(In your last post I found your argumentation highly subjective and lacking objective proofs, therefore I would like to avoid reading a lot only to find out, the same applies here as well.)

Could you outline the major claims that you are putting forward with an objective proof for it at each point? (If you don't want to, that's fine too.)

Edited May 16, 2018 by barn
' ship-shape '

[neeeel]

On 5/12/2018 at 11:45 PM, Terran said:

Something cannot exist, if it wasn't first created by something. Therefore nothing existed. But for nothing to exist, nothing is a something, and an absolute.

How do you know something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something? 

 

Nothing is something? really? 

[ofd]

Quote

The lack of a pattern in prime numbers and the number pi, reveals that our universe is not a fully constructed order out of chaos.

Both prime numbers and the number are full of patterns.
 

Quote

Concepts such as morality and the difference between truth and lies, are learned through evolution.

Citation strongly needed. The only sort of (universal) morality that was constructed via evolution is game theory, namely tit for tat.

[Terran]

On 5/16/2018 at 6:56 PM, barn said:

Sorry, tldr.

Then I suggest you read before commenting.

On 5/16/2018 at 6:56 PM, barn said:

In your last post I found your argumentation highly subjective and lacking objective proofs

Not an argument. And prove it. In your last post I found your argumentation non-existent and lacking objective proofs.

3 hours ago, neeeel said:

How do you know something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something? 

 

Nothing is something? really? 

Clearly you know nothing about the laws of physics and its order from within a chaotic state. The first to exist was a paradox. From that paradox came an incoherent chaos. From that incoherent chaos, coherence slowly came to take shape. I explained this crystal clear. I suggest you read over what I said multiple times until you understand it. And yes, nothing is something. It is an absolute. An absolute is a stable and coherent something. Therefore, nothingness is a paradox. You can see this in empty space, where if you look closely enough, it is a mess of chaos. Order only makes up a tiny fragment of the universe. The rest is made up of order manipulating the chaos, in the form of whirlpools.

2 hours ago, ofd said:

Both prime numbers and the number are full of patterns.

From Wikipedia, 'In number theory, a formula for primes is a formula generating the prime numbers, exactly and without exception. NO SUCH FORMULA which is efficiently computable is known'. Note that in your displayed 'formula', it includes Pi, which I also mentioned. Pi also has no known pattern. So by including a random infinite number in a formula, refutes your very formula and I am right on both accounts.

2 hours ago, ofd said:

Citation strongly needed. The only sort of (universal) morality that was constructed via evolution is game theory, namely tit for tat.

I said, 'Concepts such as morality and the difference between truth and lies, are learned through evolution'. I cite and already cited the entire tree of evolution. How did parents learn to take care of their children? It was learned through evolution. Those who cared for their children, survived and passed on the disposition and cultural heritage. Theft/rape/murder destroy social cohesion which breaks down the family unit and degrades a gene pool. Evolution has taught us to value and respect property, sexuality and life. These learned values of what works and what doesn't, have been the primary driving force in evolution. While I have given you here a few key examples, every aspect of morality can be traced back directly to evolution. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. It's common sense. The animal kingdom understands this. Evolution is a learning process of what works and what doesn't. When a corrupted evolution of evil happens, it only advances in the moment and suffers in many areas long term. Therefore, evil is short lived and self defeating. Morality on the other hand is the inevitable destination of evolution. The only reason you wouldn't understand this is if you are indoctrinated heavily by an ideology (such as game theory). Ideologies are a corruption of evolution. Ideologies are fetishes. Ideologies seek to downplay, negate, override and replace human nature and evolution, and manipulate it to serve the agenda of a conspiring few.

[barn]

12 minutes ago, Terran said:

Then I suggest you read before commenting. 

I certainly could if I had a reason (enticement). Plus the last time didn't go well, and...

I said :

On 05/16/2018 at 10:56 AM, barn said:

(In your last post I found your argumentation highly subjective and lacking objective proofs, therefore I would like to avoid reading a lot only to find out, the same applies here as well.)

Could you outline the major claims that you are putting forward with an objective proof for it at each point? (If you don't want to, that's fine too.) 

to which you replied:

15 minutes ago, Terran said:

Not an argument. And prove it. In your last post I found your argumentation non-existent and lacking objective proofs. 

I did explain it there (your first thread), maybe you skipped it (by accident?) Have you been superficial and jumped to a false conclusion? (also by accident?) It's ok. People make mistakes. 

Besides, if you can't distill it into a coherent set of points with proofs, the whole bunch of words, it's kinda pointless to read for anyone who was looking for reason & evidence, (me thinks).

In case if you could, but don't want to, like I had said.

On 05/16/2018 at 10:56 AM, barn said:

(If you don't want to, that's fine too.) 

 

[Terran]

On 5/16/2018 at 6:56 PM, barn said:

Could you outline the major claims that you are putting forward with an objective proof for it at each point? (If you don't want to, that's fine too.)

Read the original post. That's exactly what I already did. I explain how logic is created from a paradox through chaos (the process being logic based, and chaos being a critical component in how the universe operates). I explained how the creation of the universe was not a slow progression, but a spontaneous event ( a scientifically observable phenomenon). I explain how God began as a simple repeating pattern, in the same manner as life on Earth (represented in the same patterns repeated over and over on different scales). I explained and showed diagrams of the same repeating patterns on various scales (which proves that there is a nature of the universe than permeates all things). I explained the incompleteness of the universe as shown in prime numbers and Pi (the well known anomalies in math and logic). I explained the reason behind the 11:11 phenomenon, known also as synchronicity (a scientifically observed but taboo topic). I even proposed that if there is a God, it is not truly omnipotent. I even explained the nature of evil. I could go on and on, I have explained all the mysteries, with logic, facts and reason, backed up by science.

[barn]

32 minutes ago, Terran said:

Read the original post. That's exactly what I already did. I explain how logic is created from a paradox through chaos (the process being logic based, and chaos being a critical component in how the universe operates). I explained how the creation of the universe was not a slow progression, but a spontaneous event ( a scientifically observable phenomenon). I explain how God began as a simple repeating pattern, in the same manner as life on Earth (represented in the same patterns repeated over and over on different scales). I explained and showed diagrams of the same repeating patterns on various scales (which proves that there is a nature of the universe than permeates all things). I explained the incompleteness of the universe as shown in prime numbers and Pi (the well known anomalies in math and logic). I explained the reason behind the 11:11 phenomenon, known also as synchronicity (a scientifically observed but taboo topic). I even proposed that if there is a God, it is not truly omnipotent. I even explained the nature of evil. I could go on and on, I have explained all the mysteries, with logic, facts and reason, backed up by science.

I know you THINK it's making sense, I don't doubt that it's all established in your mind (somehow).

I also know, that I asked you (reasonably) to boil it down, instead of you expecting me to read the whole 'word-collection' (haven't read this one, so can't say what it is)

after

I had pointed out that in your previous looong post I couldn't find coherent arguments with proofs.

AND

You didn't reply to my post there when initially I had pointed this out to you. (i.e. - You need to prove your claims, not theorize. Declaring stuff won't make it just change reality itself. This is a philosophy forum, not MSM.)

Hmm...

By the way, do you buy everything you see, because how else could you tell if it was worth it, other than paying for it first? Nonsense. (as in: makes no sense)

Following your logic, we shouldn't judge if something was a waste of our time but instead risk wasting our time, every time .

Thanks,

This was instructive for me.

[Terran]

3 minutes ago, barn said:

I certainly could if I had a reason (enticement). Plus the last time didn't go well, and...

A mind of reason doesn't need to be baited with primitive emotional whims in order to pursue the truth. They don't need to be pushed into it at all. They read, and read thoroughly, of their own will. They do not comment on things they know nothing about. And they do not submit to fear.

 

5 minutes ago, barn said:

to which you replied:

False. I replied to different sections of your post in different segments. You are misquoting me.

6 minutes ago, barn said:

I did explain it there (your first thread), maybe you skipped it (by accident?) Have you been superficial and jumped to a false conclusion? (also by accident?) It's ok. People make mistakes. 

Again, false. Firstly, you are talking about two different topics in two different sections of a forum. Keep conversation to one topic at a time, within each topic. You cannot use one topic to refute another. And you have also failed to do so. I am not being superficial, you are, and have proven it extensively with your appeal to fear and preferences for emotional whim over the truth. And I haven't made any mistakes. Your whole argument revolved around quoting a misguided and false quote from Stefan Molyneux. I corrected you, and him, in detail. Your response was to ignore the fact that your false claims were refuted, and continue with new false claims, which again, I refuted. This is not a mistake, the serial offences and presence of sarcasm proves that it is intentional. You are not here for the truth. And this was in fact my first thread.

14 minutes ago, barn said:

Besides, if you can't distill it into a coherent set of points with proofs, the whole bunch of words, it's kinda pointless to read for anyone who was looking for reason & evidence, (me thinks).

In great hypocrisy, you do this very thing while I do not. You are projecting. And how would you know if there is or is not evidence if you never bothered to read in the first place? Nothing you say holds up to scrutiny. There is no facts, logic and reason, only an incoherent appeal to shallow emotional whim. Bother to read and understand before commenting.

19 minutes ago, barn said:

In case if you could, but don't want to, like I had said.

I already have, twice. In my initial post and again in my previous post. You would know this if you bothered to read in the first place. There are no short cuts to the truth. You have to read, use your head, understand what is said and study the topic further. Why are you even here if you are only here to comment on things you never bothered to read, and don't bother to read anything? With that mentality, you will never understand anything, ever, no matter how much truth is put in front of you. It makes your words meaningless noise and a vandalous disruption to the flow of ideas. Are you only here with smear to discredit me with lies in order to spite me over proving in another topic that you don't know what love is? If you aren't willing to read and stick to the topic, and just want to be passive aggressive, then just don't comment because you are not contributing to the pursuit of truth, but getting in the way. Yet again, the proof is above, if you bother to read. If you don't understand my words, then you need to study the topics until you do. the things I talk about, should be common knowledge to anyone who pursues the truth. I refer to specific phenomenon observed by science. I even finished my initial post with 5 images showing the same phenomenon appearing on different scales.

[ofd]

Quote

refutes your very formula

Nah. The formula creates pi / 4 and it is highly regular. You can use it just as well as pi. Your argument is invalid. Also look up the zeta function in case you were wondering about patterns for prime numbers.

[ofd]

Quote

An electron orbits a nucleus

You are 150 years behind physics.

[neeeel]

6 hours ago, Terran said:

Clearly you know nothing about the laws of physics and its order from within a chaotic state. The first to exist was a paradox. From that paradox came an incoherent chaos. From that incoherent chaos, coherence slowly came to take shape. I explained this crystal clear. I suggest you read over what I said multiple times until you understand it. And yes, nothing is something. It is an absolute. An absolute is a stable and coherent something. Therefore, nothingness is a paradox. You can see this in empty space, where if you look closely enough, it is a mess of chaos. Order only makes up a tiny fragment of the universe. The rest is made up of order manipulating the chaos, in the form of whirlpools.

No, you didnt explain it. You just stated it as if it was fact and I should accept it.

"the first to exist was a paradox" , a paradox isnt a thing, its a concept. You would have to show that such a thing can exist as a tangible object in reality. Then you would have to show that it was the first thing to exist.

You would need to show that from that paradox came an incoherent chaos (as well as defining what you mean by "incoherent chaos")

 

I did read over what you said multiple times, all I see is a set of claims, with no explanation or proof.

 

 

You also didnt address my first question , which was

How do you know something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something?

 

[barn]

Hi @Terran

Please accept my sincere sympathy for the probable struggles you might have suffered and I wish you general improvement in your life.

To me it was instructive regarding why you might be having your worldview as such.

This comes after having seen a few segments from a couple of your videos you linked here:

"[...] If you want to know my story, then I produce a link to it here, up to 2015 and before I was kidnapped and tortured by police for a second time and imprisoned for a year without a crime. I am presently on the run from the government, for a lifetime of fighting government corruption, my involvement in the intelligence field, my assistance in putting Wikileaks on the world stage and more. I also offer proof of my identity and histor y. Review chapter 1 of my recent book , it contains a four hour video of my life story along with evidence to back up my story: https://pastebin.com/uMP0fQCd [...]

[Terran]

22 hours ago, barn said:

I know you THINK it's making sense, I don't doubt that it's all established in your mind (somehow).

Your inability to understand concepts, isn't a refutation. Denial is not a refutation either, nor an argument. Go through it all, point by point, until you understand. You will need to understand the basics of how the universe works in order and chaos first. I expect anyone who claims to pursue philosophy, to already know these things. They are the first step in learning philosophy. If you don't know these things, then philosophy is not what you're pursuing.

22 hours ago, barn said:

I also know, that I asked you (reasonably) to boil it down, instead of you expecting me to read the whole 'word-collection' (haven't read this one, so can't say what it

There is no need for me to simplify something that is already simple. I still further abbreviated several sample points for you, since you are unable and unwilling to read. And still you don't read. Your problem is ignorance, and ignorance is a choice. Bother to read. Learn to use your mind to understand what is being said. Ignorance and denial isn't an argument. I should never bothered to abbreviate it further for you, since you refuse to even read. You are wasting my time. Again, bother to read.

23 hours ago, barn said:

I had pointed out that in your previous looong post I couldn't find coherent arguments with proofs.

How can you point anything out if you admit you never even read it? Yet again, bother to read. And don't just read, learn to use your mind properly and understand. I offered clear proof with many examples, twice. The truth is, you can't find your own coherent arguments with proof to content me. You are playing a manipulative game of role reversal. If I was incoherent, you would be able to specifically point it out, and would have done so immediately. You have not, and cannot, because your position and claims are incoherent, have no basis in reality and have no proof.

23 hours ago, barn said:

You didn't reply to my post there when initially I had pointed this out to you. (i.e. - You need to prove your claims, not theorize. Declaring stuff won't make it just change reality itself. This is a philosophy forum, not MSM.)

 

I answered every point. I have proven my claims. You have not. If this is a philosophy forum, then I suggest you behave appropriately. Philosophy rarely involves proof, and usually involves theories. Yet I offer both theory and proof, which you deny blatantly while right in front of you. Unlike you, who is passive aggressively engaging in psychological projection of your own inadequacies onto me, I do not simply 'declare stuff'. I offer detailed explanations and clear evidence to back them up. You wouldn't know this because, yet again, you self admittedly never bothered to read. My original post is 'looooong', because of those very explanations you complained about and never bothered to read. You can't have it both ways and perpetually change as it suits you. If this isn't 'MSM' (mainstream media), and is somehow above mainstream media propaganda, then prove it by acting appropriately and using reason and debate, instead of fallacies and ignorance. You change reality by putting in hard work, such as bothering to read and using your mind to understand without complaining, and not by taking shortcuts.

[Terran]

23 hours ago, barn said:

By the way, do you buy everything you see, because how else could you tell if it was worth it, other than paying for it first? Nonsense. (as in: makes no sense)

I never made such a claim.

23 hours ago, barn said:

Following your logic, we shouldn't judge if something was a waste of our time but instead risk wasting our time, every time .

In the pursuit of knowledge, you must risk wasting your time over and over again. Only by studying something sufficiently, do you earn the right to judge and have the capacity to judge rightly. If you judge something you know nothing about, then you are judging falsely and from ego. One way, is the pursuit of the truth. The other way, is the pursuit of beliefs. You can't have it both ways. You can only pursue one, and sacrifice the other. You took the blue pill.

19 hours ago, ofd said:

Nah. The formula creates pi / 4 and it is highly regular. You can use it just as well as pi. Your argument is invalid. Also look up the zeta function in case you were wondering about patterns for prime numbers.

False. Your argument is invalid. You are inserting multiple other false and irrelevant arguments in place of others in a red herring fallacy. You cannot insert an infinitely random number into an equation and get a finite result. Neither Pi nor prime numbers have a known pattern. You can claim otherwise all you wish, but that doesn't change the facts. Zeta function is irrelevant, it cannot predict prime numbers. I even stated a source to back that up. Note that it is called the 'Riemann hypothesis', a HYPOTHESIS.

19 hours ago, ofd said:

You are 150 years behind physics.

False. Prove it. I have already proven you false. You are doing nothing more than engaging in circular fallacies, along with your peers. I can and have answered the unanswerable questions. That makes me ahead, not behind.

18 hours ago, neeeel said:

No, you didnt explain it. You just stated it as if it was fact and I should accept it.

I certainly did explain it, multiple times now. You would know this if you bothered to read and use your head. I state facts as facts. Your acceptance or rejection of facts, is your choice not mine. Your choices are not as important as the motives behind them, and I suspect your motives based on your serial and predictable abuse of fallacies and ignorance.

[Terran]

18 hours ago, neeeel said:

"the first to exist was a paradox" , a paradox isnt a thing, its a concept. You would have to show that such a thing can exist as a tangible object in reality. Then you would have to show that it was the first thing to exist.

A paradox is a very real thing. The mechanics of the universe operate through paradoxes. Every tangible thing is the result of both order and chaos operating through paradoxes. If you don't know this, then you know nothing about the universe. Just because you aren't aware of widely known information, doesn't make it false. Ignorance is not an argument.

18 hours ago, neeeel said:

You would need to show that from that paradox came an incoherent chaos (as well as defining what you mean by "incoherent chaos")

No. A paradox came first. Chaos came from the paradox. Chaos is all around us, and a critical part of how everything in the universe works, such as entropy. If you want to know what 'incoherent chaos' means, then look up the words 'incoherent' and 'chaos'. How can you be in what is supposed to be a 'philosophy' forum, and not know the meaning of these of all words?

 

18 hours ago, neeeel said:

I did read over what you said multiple times, all I see is a set of claims, with no explanation or proof.

No, you have not read over what I wrote, and you have not understood a single word. As above, you don't even know what the words 'incoherent' and 'chaos' mean. It is not my job to educate you on the basics of philosophy. If you don't know the basics, then you shouldn't be here commenting. You should start again in Kindergarten. In order to talk philosophy, a minimum standard of knowledge, intent and intellectual capacity is required. You don't see explanations or proof, because you only see what you want to see, while ignoring the rest. Holding your eyes and your ears shut, and crying 'I can't see or hear anything!' is the act of a desperate and untrained child mind. Explanations and proof have been made abundantly clear. You simply ignore them and pretend they don't exist, engaging in circular fallacies and denials. It is highly toxic, and disruptive to the flow of ideas.

 

18 hours ago, neeeel said:

You also didnt address my first question , which was

How do you know something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something?

I already answered you, specifically and explicitly. You never bothered to read. I also answered this question before it was even asked, in my original post. Selective sight, selective hearing.

8 hours ago, barn said:

Please accept my sincere sympathy for the probable struggles you might have suffered and I wish you general improvement in your life.

I don't need sympathy, but thank you anyway. I have lived a life of extreme self sacrifice, in pursuit of morality and truth. I knew the risks, I knew the cost, and paid the price. I knew what I was doing all along. Through suffering, true intentions are tested and measured. It is an opportunity to reveal the value of morality and truth.

[Kohlrak]

My own little take on this, and i've said this in separate parts in other posts, is that we give way too much credit to numbers. Humans came up with the rules that we observe in math. Therefore, unless the universe revolves around math, then math is merely a method through which we try to simplify our universe. The challenge, then, is that the universe isn't all that entirely logical to us. While logic will hold true most of the time, we need to consider that everything we come up with is post fact.

 

Another observation: God or not, we have the chicken or egg issue with the universe. God sure as heck makes it easier, but instead of what part of the universe came first (secularism) it becomes what part of God came first? The religious person has the advantage of suggesting that things we observe make sense to us because God either made or is the universe. Whether you believe in the big bang-big suck cycle or not, we still suffer the point of origin problem. For the longest time, we believed that space is infinite in all directions, but now we believe time, not space, is, and that we go through cycles of big bang and big suck. We also believe that we have directions outside of space-time, when it's based entirely on math, and we can't even verify whether or not time actually even is a 4th direction. Even if we could solve the God question as either a definite yes or no, we still have a problem when it comes to occam's razor: everything we know has a point of origin, therefore to satisfy occam's razor, so would God and/or the universe. I don't believe we're anywhere near solving this, especially when we're taking space-time, quantum physics, math, and everything else simply for granted as true, even though we keep changing the damn rules to suit what we want to believe.

 

Disclaimer: tl;dr: OP already assumes way more than i'm willing to surrender to.

[neeeel]

4 hours ago, Terran said:

I already answered you, specifically and explicitly. You never bothered to read. I also answered this question before it was even asked, in my original post. Selective sight, selective hearing.

no you didnt answer my question, which is how do you know that this is true. 

Your claim is

 

Quote

Something cannot exist, if it wasn't first created by something.

Instead of saying how you know this in your original post, you jump straight to

 

Quote

Therefore nothing existed

Then , when I asked you the question the first time, your response was 

 

Quote

The first to exist was a paradox. From that paradox came an incoherent chaos. From that incoherent chaos, coherence slowly came to take shape

Again, none of this answers how you know that something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something. Nowhere in your entire answer to me did you lay out how you know that something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something. 

 

 

 

[ofd]

Quote

You cannot insert an infinitely random number into an equation and get a finite result.

I never say you could.

 

Quote

Neither Pi nor prime numbers have a known pattern

The formula is highly regular. Look up what the equation sign means.

 

Quote

False. Prove it.

This is how a hydrogen atom looks like.

[barn]

13 minutes ago, ofd said:

This is how a hydrogen atom looks like.

Hey, I can use that! Thanks.

[Terran]

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

the universe isn't all that entirely logical

Exactly  . It is a combination of a little order, a lot of chaos, and paradoxes of interaction.

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

God or not, we have the chicken or egg issue with the universe.

My explanation solves it.

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

instead of what part of the universe came first (secularism) it becomes what part of God came first?

My explanation solves that, too. It is the same thing as the precursor for life on Earth. A simple, repeating pattern. When new components are introduced from the chaos, that repeating pattern interacts with them, adding a complexity of interactions that result in a new creation greater than the sum of its parts. I suggest that God evolved from this, to the very end of evolution itself, and later created the intervening electrical force that sparked the creation of the universe as we know it and gives form to mass. If the electrical force was there to begin with, there would not have been a traceable spontaneous event. For it to appear, it must come into existence from within chaos. But nothing spontaneously and so coherently spawns from chaos in an instant. Rather, it is a slow progression with many changes and a gradual increase in interactions. The spontaneity of the universe suggests that the electrical force was suddenly created by an intervention.

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

we still suffer the point of origin problem

Not with my explanation. It answers everything.

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

For the longest time, we believed that space is infinite in all directions, but now we believe time, not space, is, and that we go through cycles of big bang and big suck.

Yet the universe is known to be expanding at an increasing rate. There is no evidence of a big suck. I also suggest that galaxies spiral predominantly outward, not inward. I suggest a big 'leak' within each galaxy. Heavier elements are pulled in to the hole and can temporarily clog it up, until it blasts back out from the back pressure. This explains why galaxies are so dark 20% of the time, and a small percentage of the time they are intensely bright.

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

We also believe that we have directions outside of space-time, when it's based entirely on math, and we can't even verify whether or not time actually even is a 4th direction.

People who obsess over math, are part of a science cult. Their 'math' is a hypothesis at best, and absolute nonsense at worst. In general, it is absolute nonsense. With all their 'math', they still can't answer a single question. All they can prove is that the universe does NOT operate on math and is full of paradoxes, which makes everything they do a complete waste of time. On another note, interestingly enough all motion exists on a two dimensional plane. It is bent around a third dimension, and resists the influence of a third dimension.

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Even if we could solve the God question as either a definite yes or no, we still have a problem when it comes to occam's razor: everything we know has a point of origin, therefore to satisfy occam's razor, so would God and/or the universe.

My explanation answers the point of origin, without assumptions. The evidence is all around us, in how the universe operates, in how logic inevitably spawns from chaos, and how life spawned from 'nothing' just as God spawned from paradoxes and chaos. And in a place where time is chaotic, different timelines appear and reappear, meaning that the evolution of God from a simple pattern into the very end of evolution, transcends time. The answers and evidence are already there to see and always have been, but it requires a critical point of awareness and reason to see it. Mankind is capable, but unwilling. The vast majority of people instead choose the comfort of rigid ideologies and rituals.

[Terran]

5 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I don't believe we're anywhere near solving this, especially when we're taking space-time, quantum physics, math, and everything else simply for granted as true, even though we keep changing the damn rules to suit what we want to believe.

I believe I have already solved it in my original post. No assumptions. No changing the rules. Belief is not required, only reason and a broad understanding of many topics.

5 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Disclaimer: tl;dr: OP already assumes way more than i'm willing to surrender to.

If you didn't read, then how can you assume that I assume? I do not assume anything. I base my explanation off evidence, and went through examples of evidence.

5 hours ago, neeeel said:

no you didnt answer my question

Yes, I have answered you, multiple times now. You even quoted my very clear and detailed answer while denying it right in front of you. You are severely delusional, and see only what you want to see.

5 hours ago, neeeel said:

Again, none of this answers how you know that something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something. Nowhere in your entire answer to me did you lay out how you know that something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something.

Yet again, I have answered you multiple times. You take partial quotes from me and refuse to post the rest. You are purposely ignoring my answers and pretending they aren't there, perpetually asking the same question and being answered over and over again. Your question was already answered in my original post, and many times again after that. Are you only here to troll and vandalise the flow of ideas? I have answered you multiple times already, clearly and without any room for confusion. I will not answer you yet again. Doing so will spam this thread with the same question and answer over and over again, drowning out the rest. Also, your question is nonsensical. Everything was created by something, this is a fundamental and universally accepted and proven fact. It's simply a matter of tracing the chain of causality back to the point of origin, which I have done. I suggest you stop vandalising this thread.

4 hours ago, ofd said:

I never say you could.

You did, in fact. You claimed that there is a way to predict prime numbers. I claimed that there was not, and offered a peer reviewed source to back it up. You counter claimed with a source of your own, which I refuted since your source is only a hypothesis that goes against the well established knowledge that there is no known way to predict prime numbers. I said, 'You cannot insert an infinitely random number into an equation and get a finite result'. A prime number is a finite result. Pi is an infinitely random number. And you use Pi in your equation. So you did in fact say that you could insert an infinitely random number into an equation and get a finite result.

5 hours ago, ofd said:

The formula is highly regular. Look up what the equation sign means.

Again, your formula cannot predict prime numbers. It is a HYPOTHESIS. And again, you cannot insert pi into an equation and get a finite result. When it comes down to it, it is nothing more than nonsense gibberish.

5 hours ago, ofd said:

This is how a hydrogen atom looks like.

No, that is a hypothetical mathematical diagram of atoms. And it is entirely irrelevant to the point. You said, 'You are 150 years behind physics'. I said, 'False. Prove it'. So go on, prove it. Since I can answer all the unanswerable questions, that makes me ahead, not behind, especially since 'theoretical physics' to this day cannot answer a single meaningful question. The vast majority of it is absolute nonsense gibberish.

[ofd]

Quote

You claimed that there is a way to predict prime numbers.

Nope. I said prime numbers are full of patterns. Look up the zeta-function if you don't believe me.
 

Quote

Pi is an infinitely random number.

The word you looking for is transcendent.

 

Quote

No, that is a hypothetical mathematical diagram of atoms.

Sorry that science disagrees with your pet peeve theory. Since the 20s of last century we know that electrons don't move around atoms in circles. There are two ways to react to that. Study physics or make stuff up on the spot. Choose wisely.

 

Quote

The vast majority of it is absolute nonsense gibberish.

I am sure it appears that way to you.

[Gavitor]

LOL people here still feed the trolls I see.

[Kohlrak]

3 hours ago, Gavitor said:

LOL people here still feed the trolls I see.

He contradicted himself in direct response to me (lied about something when the truth is a mere few posts above mine). He did a small strawman, and i'm done. I'm still new here, in a way. Is there any more warnings you could give me about this place?

[neeeel]

18 hours ago, Terran said:

Yet again, I have answered you multiple times. You take partial quotes from me and refuse to post the rest. You are purposely ignoring my answers and pretending they aren't there, perpetually asking the same question and being answered over and over again. Your question was already answered in my original post, and many times again after that. Are you only here to troll and vandalise the flow of ideas? I have answered you multiple times already, clearly and without any room for confusion. I will not answer you yet again. Doing so will spam this thread with the same question and answer over and over again, drowning out the rest. Also, your question is nonsensical. Everything was created by something, this is a fundamental and universally accepted and proven fact. It's simply a matter of tracing the chain of causality back to the point of origin, which I have done. I suggest you stop vandalising this thread.

Ok, to  help me out here, can you directly quote where you answered the question "How do you know that something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something". Perhaps I missed it, or maybe you are right and I am stupid, so if you can help me out by quoting your answer, and indicating that its the answer to my question, it would help me a lot. I am anticipating that your answer will be "no, go back and read it", but the problem is that I have already gone back multiple times and cant see it, so going back another time isnt going to help. 

 

Quote

Also, your question is nonsensical. Everything was created by something, this is a fundamental and universally accepted and proven fact. It's simply a matter of tracing the chain of causality back to the point of origin, which I have done.

This is your first actual direct response to my question, which is great, it shouldnt have taken me 4 or 5 times of asking though. 

My question is not nonsensical. The question makes perfect sense, gramatically, syntactically, and semantically.

Its not a proven fact that everything was created by something. you can trace causality back to the big bang, but no further. As I understand it, science is still very much divided on how the universe came into being, and what caused the big bang.