Jive wrote:
One questions to think out when looking at this question would be; If God eliminated all evil in the world, how many of us do you think would still be here in the morning...?

Can't believe I missed this question... Hold on... Let me answer it for you...

If babies are innocent and go to heaven (as many a christian has told me), why doesn't every christian condemn themselves to their hell and kill off their babies? Send them to heaven before they know evil. Point and counterpoint. Simple debate method.

Assuming of course, heaven and hell exist.

Pretjah wrote:

lolol you're trying to use the if a tree in the forest falls and no one around to hear it, does it make a sound arguement?

lol at erasing documentation of an event means it didn't happen, i'll only assume that since you do not believe in God, tht you believe in some form of evolution(i dont want this to turn into an evolution debate i'm simply using this as an analogy)

And yet you turn the topic around to better suit your needs...

I do not believe in a god, nor do I believe in Darwinism. So, doesn't that put a whole new twist into things. However, I am a baptized Lutheran, so no matter what I do, no matter what I say, per Lutheran teachings, I am destined for some type of afterlife.

The answer to the tree question is based on context. If the definition of no one is a person capable of hearing, the answer is no.

Sound is a perception of the mind, a fight or flight reaction to the sound. If no perceptive mind is around to take in the sound, then no sound is made.

That whole tree arguement is bunk. Useless in this debate, much like Zeno's paradox.

The correct answer to my question would be this:

Without evidence that something exists, then it is wishful thinking, you then remove the rules that make it exist. The thing that says "I exist" no longer exists. No amount of faith could turn that around. For you see, it is your faith in something that is false, something that is bound only in paper and glue.

We are bound by one rule in the universe, "I exist." Should the universe decide tomorrow "I don't exist," well, a nickle to donuts what would happen then. wouldn't that be fun.

On a side note

Pretjah wrote:

show me some form of documentation on the first cause? you can't cause there is zero documentation however you still must believe in the first cause to believe in evolution. this is called FAITH...the same FAITH you are critical of in religous people you are using for your belief. now prove to me an evolutionary first cause? you can't!

Show me physical evidence of your definition of the first cause. You can't because there is zero.

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy." -- Leon Lederman, physicist.

Pretjah wrote:

nor can God, be proven. however the historically documented accounts of the new testament and most of the old testament (yes historically documented as truthful) only add supporting evidence to the arguement to have faith in the non historically documented truths of the Bible(ie. the miracles and life of Jesus Christ)

Which brings me to this point - time to tie things together...

The Muslim religion has been pondering the original question which sparked this wildfire for some time now: In all of a god's infinite goodness, is there room for evil?

The other way to put it would be in a universe consisting only of water molecules (a god's infinite goodness), where did the grain of salt come from (evil)?

As I stated earlier, infinity has no start, no end. For to post such start or end is not being all inclusive, thereby making it finite. The only infinite known in the universe is nothing.
(x+1) + (x-1) = 0 = infinity = nothing. The christian faith determines their god to be infinite, therefore their god equals nothing, equaling does not exist. To contradict this would make a god now finite, therefore not all-powerful, all-knowing.

For all you math majors out there:



Dispute this if you must, however I find it quite fascinating to see the reactions of people when they are told "Something doesn't exist, it is nothing." For normal human comprehension of nothing is that it does not exist, never has, never will. Which is in fact correct. A christian god does not exist, never has never will.

A Muslim higher power does not exist. Hindu, Islam, Judeaism (sp), Norse, Greek, Roman, all the same, non-existance.

Pretjah wrote:
on a side note...what kind of education do you have, because you really do not follow simple logic in your arguements at all...

Edumication? Whatcha talkin' bout edumication? That there some kin' a new fire water i ain't done gone bin tolda bout?

Education is meaningless. It is you that is not bringing forth any type of simple logic. Comparing free will with a car...

Quote:

man that was probably the simpliest arguement in the history of the internet to rebuff.

As for simple logic...

Pretjah wrote:
i think they were killed for eating bagels

Pretjah wrote:
RACE not religion!! RACE not religion!

--

Happy Friday!!



"There is nothing more irritating than that which exposes the pedigree of ideas"
-- Lord Acton

Look at it this way:

If you believe in God, and die only to find out that there never was God, and there is no heaven and hell. Big whoop.

Then, lets say you are a non-believer: You die and find out that there is a Heaven and Hell. Oooops, messed up there didn't ya? You are cast into the firey land of Hell for all eternity to suffer.

The moral of the story is: Believe in God, and you can't lose.

Paul Tjepkes wrote:
The moral of the story is: Believe in God, and you can't lose.

But, sir, with the first part of your post, you have lost.

For to believe that there is a god, you must therefore believe there is an afterlife.

To die believing in a god and then find out that there is nothing, the "teachings" that you grew up with have been nothing but... dare I say it... LIES. That would then reaffirm my stand that a god does not exist.

"The answer to the tree question is based on context. If the definition of no one is a person capable of hearing, the answer is no.

Sound is a perception of the mind, a fight or flight reaction to the sound. If no perceptive mind is around to take in the sound, then no sound is made."

Could you be more wrong? Damn man, Sound is air when it get's pushed. Sound is not a perception per say, but an interpretation of vibrations. The vibrations still exist, therefore so does "sound"

Even other proponents of Evolution recognise that Darwinism is false.

The proof the infinity is an absurdity is not proof that God does not exist. Infinity is only an absurdity in our universe, while apprlying the laws of the universe. Don't confuse the Creator with the creation.

And of course you argument about "nothing" is moot because you gave it a name and made it into something. There is no such thing as "nothing" as soon as you name it. Once given a name it exists and is therefore something.

You need a new angle if you are to attempt to despute existance itself.

See my aregument here. Pasted from here

I have already made my argument for "the first cause" so I will copy and paste it in.. discuss as you may..

Do you believe, as science has shown, that the universe is finite?

If so, then it has a beginning. If it has a begining, then something had to cause it to happen. The universe could not cause itself. Newton states, that things will tend to remain as they are unles they are acted upon by an external force. The universe, therefore needs a cause. Einstein has shown that time is relative.. Relative to what? Matter and space. Matter and space did not exist "before" the begining of the universe, therefore time did not exist either. If there is no time, there is not "before". That leads to a universe that needs to be caused, and the cause must exist outside of time and space. If that cause exists outside time, it needs no cause, because nothing can be "before" something that exists outside of time. So the cause that caused the universe to exist could not have been acted upon by anything else because nothing can exist "before" it, so that thing must have caused itself to cause the universe. Therefore the "first cause" must be self aware, because it acted upon itself, follow?

If you disagree, then you tell me what other option there is. I have seen no better description of what must have happened given the evidence we have. Sure, we could be wrong, but this is a combination of logical process and physical law.. Pretty good if you ask me.

Woo hoo.. a chance to defend the existance of God.. I'm getting used to this.. I have already done it in "The Greatest Thead ever", (not the thread called that, but the thread it refers to)...

I will use bits and pieces of previous arguments...

"there cannot be anything before God, there cannot even be a "before", there isn't even time. A God transends time, there can be only one beginning... This is an inescapable conclusion in a finite universe. OK, fine, you can despute the idea of a finite universe, but then you have to disprove the laws of thermodynamics. I'm not up to the task, that's for sure.

OK, so, there is nothing, then there is time, space, and all of the matter and enegy in the universe. All at once, it had to happen that way because the transistion from no matter or space to the beginning of the universe had to happen simultainious to the beginning of time. Nothing can happen before the begining of time, and time cannot exist unless there is matter, because time is relative.

That's pretty cool stuff there ^^ and it has to have a cause to happen. Same as with anything the non-existing universe would tend to remain non-existing unless something acted upon it, causing it to exist. That thing which caused the univese to exist had to exist itself, but outside of space-time, after all you cannot dwell in space-time if you are the cause for space-time existence, otherwise you exist inside something that does not exist, that is obsurd.

So, so far.. The universe has a beginning. The beginning of the universe needs a cause. Whatever caused the universe to exist, existed outside of space and time.

moving on.. Nothing can exist before time. If there is no time, then there can be no "before". Everything that has ever happened has happened after the beginning of time, OR simultanious to the beginning of time.

So, something caused the begining of time and all of the matter and energy in the universe to happen simultaniously, and did it in a manner that resulted in a nicely balanced system the supports life, and that life exists and eventually formed itself into a bunch of sentient beings that have the skills to build machines that enable them to connect to a network and share ideas even ideas about the denial of the very thing that caused all of tis to happen.

That, IMO, is GOD."

As far as where is God from.. Sorry man, God existed when there was no place to be from, and when there was no time, to ask about "before".. See When God created all of it, that means all of it.. Everything, all of space time, if there are other dimensions, God made them too.. There is no place, and no time, before God.. God pre-exists everything.. Umm, I'll think of more ways to say it, if you still don't get it. You seem to have trouble comprehending "all-powerful creator of all things"
Remember, I am quoting other aruments I have made, none of this stuff is targeted directly at anyone on this site.. I had this war over the last couple days on a different site...

"What kind of action does it take for you to see God?!?! Starting space and time and filling it with matter and energy all simultaniously isn't enough? Something had to cause the very first event ever to happen. Something had to be uncaused, therefore if had to cause itself so to speak, in order for something to cause itself, it has to be aware of it's self, and itself. So the something is a being, it is self aware. it's name is life itself, the breath of life, the cause of all things. God.

PAX"

"The God that created all matter and space and time would create other gods? Angels maybe, but there can be only one God. I don't really know of any other way to say it, but the isn't really a way to share the all-powerfullness of being God.. After all a God is not subservent to anything so the first cause would have to somehow be equal to something that came after it, but the first cause, caused time, and the after things could never equal that, so... IMO, I have no authority. It just seems logical.

I have not tried to convince you of the validity of the Bible what so ever. I believe in the Bible, what you believe is your path, be it to God or away. You have free will acording to my beliefs

PAX"

"I believe we have example in other systems we see... Cold is the absence of heat energy, darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of goodness? Hatred the absence of love?"

"The level of perfection within the known universe should be enough for most, but.. Let's deal with a few angles..We covered one.. Motion, all things are in motion and must have (Newtonian stuff here) been put in motion by some cause.. We have pretty much established that.

Next up.. Reason for the first cause. Things do not happen for no reason, therefore there must be a reason. Reasoning requirs intellegence and a need for existance.. The argument goes alittle like this. If there is a first cause (there is) then it must pocess within itself a sufficient reason for existance..

Contingent beings.. Beings exist and the possibility for there non-existance is recognised as possible as well, this implies the existance of a necessary being, the being is God.

The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God. This is to say that we strive towards an ideal of perfection that is within our mindset and yet has never been achieved by humankind. The benchmark that we are all aware of intuitively is God.

The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself. Of course many would against that. All I can answer is that it does not stand alone, and when you put all of these things together, you have your proof, but hey, I'll go on...

Common consent of mankind.. IE morality. Why would a child feel bad when they see a dead bird, or kill and ant by mistake. If we had no moral standard inherit in our nature, we would be like the rest of the animal kingdom and care only about preservation of the self, and the species. We care about much more than that, and we judge ourselves against an unknown moral scale. Why? God, whether you know him or not, he knows you.

connected arguments include

from the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument)

and

The existence and perception of beauty in the universe. We can recognise beauty. This is very much like the ideal of perfection. We always strive to improve, to get closer to the percieved perfection.

I can go on and on and on....

PAX"

Good luck with all that...

Kardain wrote:

Jive wrote:
One questions to think out when looking at this question would be; If God eliminated all evil in the world, how many of us do you think would still be here in the morning...?

Can't believe I missed this question... Hold on... Let me answer it for you...

If babies are innocent and go to heaven (as many a christian has told me), why doesn't every christian condemn themselves to their hell and kill off their babies? Send them to heaven before they know evil. Point and counterpoint. Simple debate method.

Assuming of course, heaven and hell exist.

A valid question no doubt. The answer is because the possibility of heaven doesn't end the day that we begin to know evil and sin. We have another way, through Jesus who forgave us of our sins. If not for that, your reasoning would probably be an option.

^^ That all depends on whether or not you believe in "Original Sin". Unbaptised Catholic babies do not go to Heaven accourding to Catholic dogma. There are special cerimonies in the event of a death before baptism. I forget the details, but it is a special case.

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:
Could you be more wrong? Damn man, Sound is air when it get's pushed. Sound is not a perception per say, but an interpretation of vibrations. The vibrations still exist, therefore so does "sound"

By your reasoning, if a tree were to fall on a spot exactly opposite the globe from you, then you could interpret those vibrations. That, of course is false. The vibrations would have been dispersed to the point where they are no longer interpreted.

Sound is a perception. Not an interpretation. Throw someone that is hearing impaired into the scenario. Such a person is not capable of perceiving sound. Therefore, the answer is still no. Such a person also cannot "interpret the vibrations" as they do not have a reference to interpret to. No 2 trees fall with the same sound. Each is distinct.

Quote:


See my aregument here. Pasted from here

You could have just left it at the link. I'm sure that many here, including myself, would be capable of manipulating the mouse arrow to click the link.

By copy-pasting that information, you still did not add to your burden of proof, only created a nightmare of garbage, most of which does not pertain to the debate at hand.

So, I direct you to:
here...

Entitled: Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology by Prof. Quenton Smith -- Professor of Philosophy, University of Western Michigan

Sound exists even if you don't hear it the same as light exists even if your eyes are closed.

The link you sent me to says right off the hop that they intend to present a valid arguement, not a sound one. Much like your arguements.. They are valid, but not sound.

Did you bother to read what I pasted? It is kind of a "Best of" from the 37 pages of arguments presented. My best of, not everyone's.

Why don't you read it and try to counter instead of just repeating the argument you'vce already made. My proffs (if you want to call them taht) attack the argument from every angle I can think of. Yet you are still going in only one direction. Your focus on the impossible infinite universe won't work on me, I never believed the universe was infinite anyway. of course if you bothered to read what I posted, you would know that.

You are of closed mind and appear to be a waste of time, sorry to say.

PAX

PS: It is not garbage, it is a collection of arguments in favour of God's existence, exactly the opposite of what you have been arguing, that is certainly related to the debate at hand. Sorry if you can't see that.

I don't want to increase my burden of proof.. Do you actually speak english or are you just pretending? Why would I ever want to increase my burden? I am providing, for your benefit, my arguements or proofs.

Your obsurd and inane logic doesn't do anything at all so far. Take another shot at it.

PAX

mrgto wrote:Word to dan barker, not all Christians take the Bible as a LITERAL interpetation.

hahaha you believe that? christians are so hardcore with their bibles its unbelievable, plus everyone knows there it no god, just Morgan Frieman, duh!!!!!

gosh religion is so annoying, im not going to submit my kids to that garbage

Quote:

Do you actually speak english or are you just pretending?

Weelll, golly. That there good-fer-nuttin yellerbelly done gone and finded I ain't speekin so's he can hear me good. Darn tootin, thinks its about time i gos and gets me some-a that there edumication and be like them city folks... YEEE HAW!!!

Do you know how to form proper sentences, with correct grammar, spelling and punctuation, or do you just pretend to?

It is time to get back to the subject at hand...

Not garbage in the sense of trash, rubbish, useless dribble...

Garbage in the sense of clutter -- you post a link, and then copy/paste from said link.

Quote:

You are of closed mind and appear to be a waste of time, sorry to say.

Quote:

Your obsurd and inane logic doesn't do anything at all so far. Take another shot at it.

Of course, I could say the same for 99.9 percent of those that believe in any type of religion. Their logic is based on one thing: a god exists. Not why or how, or even where. Just a god exists - which is, in itself pointless and without merit.

The religious commune is closed minded as well. Anything that is brought up that could be construed as heresy (ie. "There is no god") is immediately countered with the same defense mechanisms: Free-will, the bible says so, how did we get here then.

If you believe in free will, then you do not believe your god is all-knowing. By being all-knowing, it would then be predestined that you counter with the free will defense.

"The bible says so..." That arguement is about as useless as the Confederate dollar in today's time. I'd give you that argument 400 years ago, but not today.

The how did we get here arguement....

Just within this thread alone, there are two different versions of "How did we get here."

There is no right answer, just as there is no wrong answer. It's all fiction.

Quote:

Your focus on the impossible infinite universe...

Correction: My focus on the impossibility of the christian god being infinite.

Quote:

Did you bother to read what I pasted? It is kind of a "Best of" from the 37 pages of arguments presented. My best of, not everyone's.

And yours is the best why? Why not KOTL? Why not SPITfire, degenerated, or Pretjah.
Each in their own way has made valid points.

Ok, a counterpoint to your almighty "Best of"

Quote:

"The God that created all matter and space and time would create other gods?

Violation of the first commandment.

These threads get so interesting.

And by interesting, I mean inane.

Where's the bunny with the pancake on his head?

Kardain, good job man, but when it comes down to it, they're not going to give anything, regardless of how well put together an argument is.

And as for the "sound" debate, I was actually thinking that Kardain was wrong, and that sound is an interpretation, not a perception...

Then I thought about myself. I'm deaf in one ear, so I can't hear stereo. The vibrations do nothing for me. Sure, I can feel them, but I still don't interpret them as stereophonic.

So do I really know if stereo exists? Everybody tells me it does, but I sure as hell can't tell for myself.

But now we're getting into a different area of discussion...

Kardain wrote:

Garbage in the sense of clutter -- you post a link, and then copy/paste from said link.

The link was to a 37 page argument.

Kardain wrote:

If you believe in free will, then you do not believe your god is all-knowing. By being all-knowing, it would then be predestined that you counter with the free will defense.

Do you actually know the free will arguement? It states that you are free to act as you will and that God will influence those actions through your emotional response and moral compass. God knows what you will do, not because of some kind of control but because God transends time. To us it would be like seeing into the future, but for God it could very well be like looking at the past.

Kardain wrote:

"The bible says so..." That arguement is about as useless as the Confederate dollar in today's time. I'd give you that argument 400 years ago, but not today.

I don't recall ever making that arguement.

Kardain wrote:
The how did we get here arguement....

Just within this thread alone, there are two different versions of "How did we get here."

There is no right answer, just as there is no wrong answer. It's all fiction.

Hey we got here somehow. It can't ALL be fiction.

Kardain wrote:

Quote:

Your focus on the impossible infinite universe...

Correction: My focus on the impossibility of the christian god being infinite.

But you are using mathematics and physics based on our universe.

Kardain wrote:

Quote:

Did you bother to read what I pasted? It is kind of a "Best of" from the 37 pages of arguments presented. My best of, not everyone's.

And yours is the best why? Why not KOTL? Why not SPITfire, degenerated, or Pretjah.
Each in their own way has made valid points.

Because I was presenting my arguements. I didn't say mine were the best, I said that was my best, big difference. I agree that there were some very good arguements made.

Kardain wrote:

Quote:

"The God that created all matter and space and time would create other gods?

Violation of the first commandment.

Correct, and I also argue that a supreme being could not have an equal, otherwise they would not be supreme would they? In my arguement of "SImultaious causation" it is an impossibility anyway.

Quote:

But you are using mathematics and physics based on our universe.

And what universe should I be basing it on: the universe where donuts rain from the sky or the one where dinosaurs never went extinct?

Since I don't have access to the mathematics or physics from those universes, well, looks like its all based on this one.

All you have to base your side of the debate on is a book, and man's interpretation of that book. Interpretation is opinion. Everyone believes that their opinion is correct, regardless how far-fetched the opinion is.

Which brings to this...

I will have to agree with degenerated. They're not going to give anything, regardless of how well put together an argument is.

A couple final notes.

I am not conceding defeat. I am merely preventing this from becoming an out of control situation. As for the "Because the bible says so..." You may not have stated anything to that degree, however since your arguement comes from the greatest fairy tale ever written, or rather man's interpretation for the unexplained, in my opinion, it is without merit. Reason being, that book you hold so dear was written, compiled, and edited by none other than man.

"Arguing over God is a fool's conversation"

- Matt Kearns, today.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:"Arguing over God is a fool's conversation"

- Matt Kearns, today.

And the winner of this debate is GAM.
Anybody want to debate something more interesting than the existence or non existance of a god and religions? Feel free to start a new topic if you do.

The fool sometimes has more wisdom than the wisest man.

besdies, i like these arguments...when they don't degenerate to "my god has a bigger penis than your god", it's a good mental workout.

sound argument:

Things exist beyond human perception--otherwise, the planet Pluto spontaneously formed in 1938. As such, it made a sound that no one heard--the soun existed by no one knew it did--but it still existed.

It's why i cannot definitively say that God in the Judeo/christian sense existst, because i can't percieve it--no more than the christians can definitively say that God is the only God.

Besides, the universe is more than big enough for multiple belief systems.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Quote:

The answer to the tree question is based on context. If the definition of no one is a person capable of hearing, the answer is no.

LOLOLOL yeah okay thank you gracie good nite.

i guess if you can't see the light it doesn't exsist?

lol dude you really need to stop making yourself look like a fool...you already have shown extremely bad logic, horrible science, and now you're living in make believe world!

"Debating about God is one of the more pointless exercises in existence. You have a good chance of being wrong, and when you find out for certain, it's hardly worth worrying over. Besides, it's not like anyone has come back to complain about the room service."

-- Matt Kearns, today.


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

(x+1) + (x-1) = 0 ?

let's say x = 5

(5+1) + (5-1) = ?
6 + 4 = 10

think you are looking for {x^1} + {x^(-1)} = 0

overall big deal, what is so wrong with your life that you feel the need to disprove the existence of god? i am not a christian but just the way you are headed here makes me side with them. whenever anyone finds out what the truth is they are either dead and in heaven/hell/odin(sp)/purgatory.........or they are just dead and no longer aware of anything anyways.

what exactly is "evil"? to each individual it is something different, i throw it out there like this;
there is no cold, cold is a perception, there is either heat present or not
there is no dark, dark is a perception, dark is the absense of light either produced in a reaction or reflected from an object
there is no evil, only an absense of good

just like dark and cold everyone's perception of the absense of the opposite is gauged differently; what i think is cold and someone in northern british columbia thinks is cold is probably different; what i think is evil may differ from what you think is evil. using your fancy mathematics and physics seems to be the main portion of your argument however one of my algebra teachers could convince most people that 1+1=3, is it true? not according to popular belief but that does not mean you can not "prove" that it does to someone else.

i am interested inyour "nothing" argument, what exactly is nothing? can the human mind even comprehend nothing? i do not believe that it can, why else would sensory deprivation be so effective? can you imagine/perceive being weightless in a room devoid of light and sound while being injected with a temporary neurotoxin that keeps you alive but unable to "feel"(another perception) or move.

as of now the christians are up in my book just for the pure fact that they are not posting the same inflexible pick and choose logic that you are utilizing.

PS my grammar sucks and i really don't care that thread is gone, don't bother with you mis-spelled this or that unless it is pertinent to this debate.

AND sound IS the vibration transmitted through a media, generally radiating from a source, gradually weakening as the enrergy is absorbed by the media. Simply put, sound is air when it gets pushed. What we hear is really the interpretation of nerve pulses generated by a set of vibrating bones in your ear. A deaf person cannot hear, but they do not cause the sound to not exist.

In your world does it suddenly get dark when a blind person enters the room?

All energies are inherity positive in nature. Chew on that for a while.

PAX

ToBoGgAn wrote:overall big deal, what is so wrong with your life that you feel the need to disprove the existence of god? i am not a christian but just the way you are headed here makes me side with them. whenever anyone finds out what the truth is they are either dead and in heaven/hell/odin(sp)/purgatory.........or they are just dead and no longer aware of anything anyways.

Oh there is no need to disprove a god. But sometimes it is fun to see people's reactions to this type of situation. Like I stated earlier, the arguement is almost older than dirt, so while there is no right or wrong answer, it has been and always will be debated.

As for the "nothing" arguement, that was actually something that I threw together back in high school as part of a senior project for my English class. I think it was how to throw structure and administer a debate -- open topic. I chose "Non-existance of the christian god." Fortunately there was a hardcore churchy in my English class that agreed to be my opponant. I even had it cleared by the faculty for the topic just to make sure. Some of the information I still retained on paper, other bits and pieces I had to recall from memory, such as the obvious flaw in the simple algebraic equation which I have looked up and it would be:

(x*1) + (x*(-1)) = 0 --- but don't matter now.

10^-1 =1 --- from your equation....

If I ever track down all the notes I had from my debate and if this topic ever comes up again, I'll be sure to jump in and be able to hold my own. High school was 7 years ago now. New stuff learned forced old stuff out.

Also, my angle was this: most people when they hear the word "nothing" it is assumed to be exactly that, non-existance.

The part of my angle that I did not even bother to touch is that non-existance can coexist with existance. I did want to reinforce that "nothing" and "something" cannot occupy the same space.

It acutally would have ended up running a bit smoother if the angles that were coming from the proponants would have stayed somewhere towards the same specifics rather than jumping from topic to topic...

But you get the 3 on 1 scenario and that's gonna happen, its something that cannot be prevented.

I gotta admit though. This arguement had its good points. It started out strong. I had just used up the stuff I had on paper way to quick. It sounds like an excuse, I know, but that's what happened. I had to catch myself from busting out laughing at some of the quick one-liners while checking this thread at work.

something and nothing (i refer to it as emptiness and fullness) cannot occupy the same space, but both concepts--emptiness and fullness, can be quantified. As such, you can have a quark-quantity of nothingness, and a quark-quantity of emptiness--along with a nigh-universal quanta of it.

And if a lot of cases, it's the nothingness that drives the fullness to its fullest potential


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

"I did want to reinforce that "nothing" and "something" cannot occupy the same space."

actually purely theoretically nothing and something must occupy the same space. you are thinking of nothing as something.

if you have a solid mass occuppying a complete area what is in that area with the solid mass? see this is an obvious one..NOTHING!!!

nothing can not occupy space!!! in the physical world anyhow....quantum physics is attempting to prove other wise...ie black holes, and other physical anomolies.

which again goes back to EVIL and GOOD must BOTH co-exsist. one is reliant on the other. as zero and infinite are reliant on each other, and something and nothing are reliant on each other.

you can not have one with out the other.

Quote:

you are thinking of nothing as something.

Quote:

if you have a solid mass occuppying a complete area what is in that area with the solid mass? see this is an obvious one..NOTHING!!!

Uhh... right.... Now who's trying to make "something out of nothing."

You wanna rephrase that last question so it makes some sense?

Seetheproblemwithnotaddingsometypeofpunctuationtoyoursentencestodifferentiate
whereonepartofitbeginsandtheotherpartendsmakesitlooklikethis.