There has always been something existing: yes, no?

[shunyadragon]

Time being the operative dimension in question.

No problem. In absolute time we have no known beginning nor end.

[gerry]

Well, before anything else, I want to commend the owners and operators of this forum, for the freedom here to write my thoughts and feelings, at times also engaging in harsh language but no cuss words.

I have just been into the blog of an atheist who calls himself Angry Atheist but declaring himself to be receptive to comments from all readers.

So, he has a write-up about cognitive dissonance, and I decided to contribute my comments; things went well until this morning when my last comment did not come out, but a message is displayed on the monitor informing me that the link is no longer working, so to return to the homepage.

I guess they finally realized that they are into a lot of cognitive dissonance and cannot face the fact.

Here is my record of my comments and someone there who cannot think coherently and consistently but can string words together, feeling so smart for doing so even when the words he strings together are indicative of awful cognitive dissonance.

The Angry Atheist by Reap


http://angryatheist.info/?p=566#comment-1002


"THOUGHTS ON “THE ANGRY ATHEIST 56 W/ COGNITIVE DISSONANCE”

1. Pingback: Episode 33: Lawmakers for Constitutional Ignorance | Cognitive Dissonance the Podcast

2. Marius de Jess on April 13, 2012 at 12:59 am said:
I just want to say that it is cognitive dissonance to settle on randomness as the ground of all being but to bring in order with natural selection.
As randomness is all prevailing in time and in space, why should it be that there is selection at all and that selection survives.
So, randomness is not all prevailing in time and in space; or there is really no randomness except that humans owing to limited knowledge cannot see the order prevailing in all existence, but in close to one’s eyes order is certainly obvious, for example, the nose in our face is testimony to order.
Reply ?

o Reapon April 13, 2012 at 6:01 am said:
• Edited by a Moderator •

3. Marius de Jess on April 13, 2012 at 1:03 am said:
“My comment is awaiting moderation.”
If it passes moderation, I like to exchange thoughts with atheists about their worldview, here.
Reply ?

4. Marius de Jess on April 14, 2012 at 1:06 am said:
First, I am glad that I can still write here.
————-
You say: “Selection isn’t really selection, there is no intelligence making choices as to survival. Selection refers to the effect of mutation. The nose in the middle of your face is a result of mutation and the environment it is not an example of order it just is. I’m no biologist so I can only say this is the way I understand it.”
—————–
You are making a distinction between what is real and what is not real or delusion, illusion, and therefore is of no effect whatever in the actual objective operation of your body, for example, how your nose operates.
You are saying then that the nose is not any indication of order but only an illusion or delusion of order.
Please forgive me, but there is a test to discern something to be a delusion or illusion, namely, by destroying it.
So, and again forgive me, suppose you just slit off your nose and see whether you will suffer anything at all, which you will not if the nose as a testimony to order is all delusion or illusion.
I hope to continue with our exchange of thoughts.
Marius de Jess
Reply ?

o Reapon April 14, 2012 at 2:58 am said:• Edited by a Moderator •

* Marius de Jess on April 14, 2012 at 5:36 pm said:
In your words:
“Selection isn’t really selection, there is no intelligence making choices as to survival. Selection refers to the effect of mutation. The nose in the middle of your face is a result of mutation and the environment it is not an example of order it just is. I’m no biologist so I can only say this is the way I understand it.”
There are several statements.
Suppose if I may you choose one statement that is the most important one you want to convey to readers.
Here are the following statements from your words above:
1. “Selection isn’t really selection,
2. there is no intelligence making choices as to survival.
3. Selection refers to the effect of mutation.
4. The nose in the middle of your face is a result of mutation
5. and the environment it is not an example of order it just is.
6. I’m no biologist so
7. I can only say this is the way I understand it.”
Or if you prefer what is the one thought foremost in your heart and mind in your series of statements above? Make that one thought very sharp, precise, concise, and clear.
The way I understand your series of statements above, you are stating in effect that there is no order in life or in a living thing, it is all in effect delusion or illusion.
Marius de Jess
Reply ?

* Reapon April 15, 2012 at 12:27 am said:• Edited by a Moderator •

----------------

[ Here is my reply which did not come out but instead a message that the link is no longer working. ]

You say:

" I am really much too busy to play games with you. "

It is not a game where we learn nothing useful to ourselves, but pure entertainment to pass time.

I say I like to exchange thoughts with you, you say that I am putting emphasis on delusion and illusion; that is the idea of Dawkins: there is no order, no design but at most only delusion or illusion of.

And I like to see whether you take to the same conviction.

Anyway, you are of the conviction that there is no order in living things, or what is there?

Let me just read your words again from the beginning of our exchange, and also my enumeration of your statements one by one:

"“Selection isn’t really selection, there is no intelligence making choices as to survival. Selection refers to the effect of mutation. The nose in the middle of your face is a result of mutation and the environment it is not an example of order it just is. I’m no biologist so I can only say this is the way I understand it.”

There are several statements.

Suppose if I may you choose one statement that is the most important one you want to convey to readers.

Here are the following statements from your words above:

1. “Selection isn’t really selection,

2. there is no intelligence making choices as to survival.

3. Selection refers to the effect of mutation.

4. The nose in the middle of your face is a result of mutation

5. and the environment it is not an example of order it just is.

6. I’m no biologist so

7. I can only say this is the way I understand it.”

Suppose you try to put forth your thoughts in one brief statement of say 20 words, what is your main idea which you want to put forth as your conviction in the matter of selection is not really selection, but [what?] ...

My point is that even without mentioning now delusion or illusion, there is order in living things otherwise the functions in living things would not be operating with regularity as to enable the living things to continue to operate to stay alive, until its living systems have aged and become dysfunctional or they are injured as to be no longer functional to sustain life, and thus death takes place.

Please, let us continue to exchange thoughts with you; and if you call it a game, it is one game in which I like to engage with you: so that we both enjoy it at the same time learn from each other to the enrichment of our knowledge.

[ Thanks to the owner and operator of this blog for allowing my thoughts to continue coming out here.* ]

* No longer.


That is always the attitude of atheists: they insist on free speech and reason but when they are shown to be irrational they suppress your speech, if they cannot suppress your speech they run away.

Now there is a third option, they take to the tack of humility or human limitation, declaring we cannot know.

Of course they cannot know, how can they when they put blinders to the eye of their mind and their reasoning faculty in order to not think beyond their blinders to the facts in the actual objective reality of existing things.




Gerry

Moderated By: Raphael

Please keep within the fair usage guidelines. We generally don't allow the posting of another conversation (your own comments fine)

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[pancreasman]

/imaginary kingdom mode on

Yes, all atheists are cowards and irrational and they don't want to talk to me because they know it.

/imaginary kingdom mode off

[gerry]

I am asking are there ex-atheists in this forum?


Okay, ex-atheists, will you come forward and tell me whether I am correct that when you were atheists you did not want to face the fact of what is obvious, namely, that there has always been something existing, and then from that point reason to the fact of the existence of God Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is the maker or creator if you will of everything that has a beginning.

Of course now that you are no longer atheists, atheists who are still with blinders in their mind will insist that you were never atheists in the first place.

But why do they say that?

Because a die-hard atheist will never change.

Now, I have heard that only two kinds of conscious beings don't change: God and fools.

Now there is a new category, die-hard atheists.


Anyway, ex-atheists here, were you of the kind which I will now call die-hard atheists, like for example Hitchens.

You atheists here should canonize Hitchens, he is one really die-hard atheist; but it did not take him long to die, from the detection of cancer to departure from life, what, a matter of roundly a year and a half.*


Of the dead nothing but good as the Romans tell us?

No disrespect to Hitchens, but I can say that he deserves to be canonized by fellow die-hard atheists, or declared martyr from death by the natural cause of cancer disease which disease is one of the things atheists specially the die-hard ones bash God for.



So, now I have a new category of atheists, die-hard atheists.

You guys who are die-hard atheists, it is to your commendation that you will never change, never admit that there has always been something existing and from that point reason and come to the light that there is God creator of everything in existence that has a beginning.

Well, I guess Satan is also a die-hard atheist by willful stubborn intention to rebel against God: because the dude knows God exists as God, but irrationally argues still with Him as witness the account in Job, where God and Satan had an experimental wager, and Satan lost, but still he would not repent.


Hahahaha, new category of atheists, die-hard atheists, they will never change.

So, there are now three kinds of conscious beings that do not change:

God, fools, and die-hard atheists.

Congratulations to die-hard atheists here, you belong to the class where God is a member.

Now, I can understand why atheists are accused of emulating God, they wanna be God Himself even though they are subject to diseases like cancer which did Hitchens in, but he never showed any compunction -- wherefore he deserves to be canonized by fellow die-hard atheists or delcared a martyr, felled by the God author of nature, fallen nature that is, where diseases prevail and God is to blame according to die-hard atheists.


You atheists here as your ambition is to be die-hard atheists, you can sing:

"Nearer my God to Thee," for you are inside the same class of conscious beings who don't change: God, fools, and die-hard atheists.



Gerry

*BBC News - Christopher Hitchens dies at 62 after suffering cancer
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418

[ Bolding from Gerry, in commendation to the man's perseverance to the death as a what I will call die-hard atheist. ]

16 Dec 2011 – British-born author, literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens dies in a Texas hospital, aged 62, after suffering from cancer.

-----------------------


British-born author, literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62.

He died from pneumonia, a complication of the oesophageal cancer he had, at a Texas hospital.

Vanity Fair magazine, which announced his death, said there would "never be another like Christopher".

He is survived by his wife, Carol Blue, and their daughter, Antonia, and his children from a previous marriage, Alexander and Sophia.

Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter described the writer as someone "of ferocious intellect, who was as vibrant on the page as he was at the bar".

"Those who read him felt they knew him, and those who knew him were profoundly fortunate souls."

Hitchens was born in Portsmouth in 1949 and graduated from Oxford in 1970.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Raphael

Please keep within the fair usage guidelines when quoting copyrighted material

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Leonhard]

Uh gerry, mind dropping the character assasination side-project you opened up. You stated in your OP that you wanted atheists to answer a specific question. I have done so.

I'm not gonna interact with your posts about the character of atheists and i recommend that other atheists follow my example. They are a non sequitor to the question you posed. Try putting those accusations in another thread and I might respond, but frankly I think you lack the charity to discuss those matters fairly. Those two posts are more about what you want to believe about atheists, and a plea to have ex-atheists confirm your preconceived notions.

Boo to you gerry.

[shunyadragon]

I am asking are there ex-atheists in this forum?


Okay, ex-atheists, will you come forward and tell me whether I am correct that when you were atheists you did not want to face the fact of what is obvious, namely, that there has always been something existing, and then from that point reason to the fact of the existence of God Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is the maker or creator if you will of everything that has a beginning.

Of course now that you are no longer atheists, atheists who are still with blinders in their mind will insist that you were never atheists in the first place.

But why do they say that?

Because a die-hard atheist will never change.

Now, I have heard that only two kinds of conscious beings don't change: God and fools.

Now there is a new category, die-hard atheists.


Anyway, ex-atheists here, were you of the kind which I will now call die-hard atheists, like for example Hitchens.

You atheists here should canonize Hitchens, he is one really die-hard atheist; but it did not take him long to die, from the detection of cancer to departure from life, what, a matter of roundly a year and a half.*


Of the dead nothing but good as the Romans tell us?

No disrespect to Hitchens, but I can say that he deserves to be canonized by fellow die-hard atheists, or declared martyr from death by the natural cause of cancer disease which disease is one of the things atheists specially the die-hard ones bash God for.



So, now I have a new category of atheists, die-hard atheists.

You guys who are die-hard atheists, it is to your commendation that you will never change, never admit that there has always been something existing and from that point reason and come to the light that there is God creator of everything in existence that has a beginning.

Well, I guess Satan is also a die-hard atheist by willful stubborn intention to rebel against God: because the dude knows God exists as God, but irrationally argues still with Him as witness the account in Job, where God and Satan had an experimental wager, and Satan lost, but still he would not repent.


Hahahaha, new category of atheists, die-hard atheists, they will never change.

So, there are now three kinds of conscious beings that do not change:

God, fools, and die-hard atheists.

Congratulations to die-hard atheists here, you belong to the class where God is a member.

Now, I can understand why atheists are accused of emulating God, they wanna be God Himself even though they are subject to diseases like cancer which did Hitchens in, but he never showed any compunction -- wherefore he deserves to be canonized by fellow die-hard atheists or delcared a martyr, felled by the God author of nature, fallen nature that is, where diseases prevail and God is to blame according to die-hard atheists.


You atheists here as your ambition is to be die-hard atheists, you can sing:

"Nearer my God to Thee," for you are inside the same class of conscious beings who don't change: God, fools, and die-hard atheists.



Gerry

*BBC News - Christopher Hitchens dies at 62 after suffering cancer
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418

[ Bolding from Gerry, in commendation to the man's perseverance to the death as a what I will call die-hard atheist. ]

16 Dec 2011 – British-born author, literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens dies in a Texas hospital, aged 62, after suffering from cancer.

-----------------------


British-born author, literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62.

He died from pneumonia, a complication of the oesophageal cancer he had, at a Texas hospital.

Vanity Fair magazine, which announced his death, said there would "never be another like Christopher".

He is survived by his wife, Carol Blue, and their daughter, Antonia, and his children from a previous marriage, Alexander and Sophia.

Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter described the writer as someone "of ferocious intellect, who was as vibrant on the page as he was at the bar".

"Those who read him felt they knew him, and those who knew him were profoundly fortunate souls."

Hitchens was born in Portsmouth in 1949 and graduated from Oxford in 1970.

• Edited by a Moderator •

I was raised in the Roman Church. Like many young people left the church and explored alternatives including other churches, I became atheist/agnostic because of the failure of Christianity to address anything close to reality. I grew to become close to Buddhism over the years, but never a Buddhist. At 23 I studied the Baha'i Faith and became a Baha'i, and now believe there is a 'Source' some call God(s) in a more universal and realistic way than ancient beliefs cling to. Clinging to ancient religious beliefs poisons everything it touches including science.

I consider the atheist/agnostic view much more real and reasonable than clinging to ancient outdated religious beliefs. Whether our physical existence had a beginning or not has nothing to do with my belief in God, and our beliefs should not influence the understanding of the scientific evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence.

[Leonhard]

Shunya why, oh why, did you hit the quote button on that wall-o-text of a rant post?

[gerry]

Dear Leonhard, you do admit that something has always been existing.

I believe I have replied to you when I told readers that for atheists who admit that something has always existed they can think all the way to the existence of God in His fundamental concept of creator of everything with a beginning.

Now, what is it you want us to exchange thoughts on?

Exchange thoughts on, that means that you must think for yourself and not regurgitate slogans from deceitful atheist copywriters who want to make big easy quick cash, laughing at you sops all the way to the bank with you sops who swallow every silly spin they fill up pages for you to lap up without any real thinking.

The latest of whom is Hawking who pontificates to you silly unthinking sops that the universe has come from nothing because there is a law of gravity.

The man is saying something against his own mind (that is one definition of lying), because he knows that the law of gravity is not nothing, and he has not accounted for why there is a law of gravity.


Hahahaha, ad hominems again, yes!

Still what else is it to talk sense to atheists of the die-hard kind but to point out the kind of attitude of non-thinking or self-truncated thinking that is self-infected and inured into their brain and inborn reasoning faculty.

---------------------


Now, Shuny, you traded your Christian Catholic faith for Baha'i, thinking if at all that is thinking but more fancying that you are being sophisticated and subtle.

My nose! What kind of sophistication is that when you have not yet even know for example tell me what you know about the Epistle to Diognetus.


There is no faith in mankind that is more examined and written about and recorded on and more still more written about but the Christian faith.

So, take up the study of the writers of the Christian faith, before you make any comparison of it with Baha'i in which there is nothing new that is not already found in the Christian faith.

You are just into the psychopathy of greener pasture when you have not seen all there is to see in your own original pasture.




Gerry

[gerry]

Okay, Leonhard and Shuny, you think yourselves to be smart but I can see that your kind do not think because you have not learned how to think really think.

I want you two to attentively apply yourselves to think as to come to the questions that I have been demanding two posters here to think up, who have made statements but cannot see what questions their statements are answering to.

Now I like to engage everyone here with my insight that anyone making a statement must have a question to which his statement is an answer.

We have here, folks, two statements from two posters:

...if "nothing" was metaphysically possible, it would still be impossible for something to come from nothing.
Haven #9.

Actually, nothing is not a metaphysical impossibility.
Chrawnus #10

How do they or what questions are these two gentlemen answering with their statements about the metaphysical possibility or impossibility of the existence of nothing?


I am inviting them to work on the questions their statements are answers to.




Gerry

Dear readers:

Leonhard and Shuny most probably as to be morally certain will be speechless, they will run away, and then much later slip in again, feeling secure that I have by then forgotten my challenge to them.



That is the catastrophe with atheists, they don't think even though they claim to know better than the average people in the street.

For example again Hawking telling his sheepish readers that the universe came forth from nothing because there is a law of gravity.

Atheists, you don't see nothing wrong with that statement, that is why you atheist guys are soaked up all over with cognitive dissonance.



Gerry

[pancreasman]

Gerry, get help.

[Leonhard]

I believe I have replied to you when I told readers that for atheists who admit that something has always existed they can think all the way to the existence of God in His fundamental concept of creator of everything with a beginning.

This is a claim, not an argument. You're free to claim whatever you want, but it will just be a statement of what you personally believe. The non-sequitor posts you wrote about atheists claimed that they were obstinate in the face of reason. So far I haven't seen any reason here other than various statements of your preconceived notions.

Now, what is it you want us to exchange thoughts on?

Given that it was you who opened the OP, I thought it would be you who would want to interact with the answers.

Exchange thoughts on, that means that you must think for yourself and not regurgitate slogans from deceitful atheist copywriters who want to make big easy quick cash, laughing at you sops all the way to the bank with you sops who swallow every silly spin they fill up pages for you to lap up without any real thinking.

What slogans have I regurgitated? And thanks for the slandering.

The latest of whom is Hawking who pontificates to you silly unthinking sops that the universe has come from nothing because there is a law of gravity...The man is saying something against his own mind (that is one definition of lying), because he knows that the law of gravity is not nothing, and he has not accounted for why there is a law of gravity...Hahahaha, ad hominems again, yes!

Seriously gerry, I didn't bring up Hawkings, you did.

Still what else is it to talk sense to atheists of the die-hard kind but to point out the kind of attitude of non-thinking or self-truncated thinking that is self-infected and inured into their brain and inborn reasoning faculty.

That didn't seem to be the point of your post at first. You asked a question, I answered it. There hasn't been any exchanges so far. You've made no arguments based on my answer and I haven't made any rebuttals. So you're basically just talking slander about my behavior. I don't think that's fair, do you?

[ZackMartin]

Okay, ex-atheists, will you come forward and tell me whether I am correct that when you were atheists you did not want to face the fact of what is obvious, namely, that there has always been something existing, and then from that point reason to the fact of the existence of God Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is the maker or creator if you will of everything that has a beginning.

I used to be an atheist. One reason I became an atheist, is because my mother tried to push me into a form of religion (Roman Catholic Church) which never made sense to me, and she could never sensibly answer the difficulties I saw in it, and when as a child I first encountered atheistic thought (in a philosophy textbook including selections from Bertrand Russell and others), it felt great to find an intellectual system which I could use against my mother. I also was very interested in science, maths, philosophy, logic, reason, and so on, so atheism attracted me because it seemed more "scientific".

As to how I stopped being an atheist, it is hard to pinpoint exactly where and why, it was a gradual process. I went through a period of my life when I was rather depressed, and developed a lot of morbid preoccupations. And frequently contemplating death, the thought of eternal nothingness seemed terrifying, yet at the same time it was rather incomprehensible to me. So that was a major element in my leaving atheism - it's story about the afterlife (there is none) came to dissatisfy me. Another factor, was as I became more educated and experienced in religion, I came to realise that the choice was not just between my mother's Catholicism and atheism, but that there are countless other options. I also developed a deeper understanding of the philosophy of science and its relationship to religion, and my previous view that atheism was more scientific came to seem overly naive (and I suppose as I grew older I found my youthful enthusiasm for science waned somewhat.) (On the topic of my mother, more recently she has grown more questioning as a Catholic, and she has admitted to me that she regrets, at least to some extent, trying to force me into churchgoing when it didn't mean anything to me.)

I don't agree that existence of God as creator of the universe is an "obvious fact". I believe it, but I don't think it is obvious, and I think a rational person could believe differently than I do. For me, atheism was never about refusing to face "obvious facts"; it was a response to my individual life situation, and equally my journey away from it was a response to an altered life situation. It's hard to say not knowing the details of the lives of others, but I would suggest that the story for many other present and former atheists and theists would be similar.

Of course now that you are no longer atheists, atheists who are still with blinders in their mind will insist that you were never atheists in the first place.

Do they? Honestly as a theist ex-atheist, I've never had an atheist say that to me before. It wouldn't surprise me if it was said on occasion, but I've never heard it personally.

Anyway, ex-atheists here, were you of the kind which I will now call die-hard atheists, like for example Hitchens.

In my younger days I would have agreed with many of his more radical claims, e.g. I believed that if religion ceased to exist tomorrow the world would be a much better place, "Religion poisons everything", "all the wars in history were caused by religion", etc. Now I have a more nuanced view of religion, and think it is unfair to condemn all religions and all religious people just because of the evils committed by some of them. I've learned to differentiate more, rather than just viewing religion as an amorphous blob of backwardness.

Regards, Zack

[shunyadragon]

Okay, Leonhard and Shuny, you think yourselves to be smart but I can see that your kind do not think because you have not learned how to think really think.

I want you two to attentively apply yourselves to think as to come to the questions that I have been demanding two posters here to think up, who have made statements but cannot see what questions their statements are answering to.





Dear readers:

Leonhard and Shuny most probably as to be morally certain will be speechless, they will run away, and then much later slip in again, feeling secure that I have by then forgotten my challenge to them.

In now!!! Not running. Unfortunately this post adds nothing to the discussion except a classic misunderstanding of Hawking's writings.

That is the catastrophe with atheists, they don't think even though they claim to know better than the average people in the street.

Many average people on the street are atheists.

For example again Hawking telling his sheepish readers that the universe came forth from nothing because there is a law of gravity.

Classic conclusions based on ignorance of what Hawking describes as to what is 'nothing,' and how the law of gravity plays a role in origins, but no Hawking does not remotely hint that the universe originated from absolutely nothing.

Atheists, you don't see nothing wrong with that statement, that is why you atheist guys are soaked up all over with cognitive dissonance.

At present your are clueless in extreme cognitive dissonance as to what Hawking meant in his writings.

[gerry]

Well, at this point I am glad that there is an ex-atheist here Zack who can talk about his own experience how he got to become an atheist, and also how atheists are not really die-hard atheists.

He says that he has never himself heard any atheists saying that ex-atheists who turn to the existence of God are not genuine atheists in the first place, because genuine atheists never change their mind as to come to admit the existence of God.

Dear Zack, your information about atheists is not as extensive as it should be; I will just bring up one instance where atheists say that ex-atheists were never genuine atheists because genuine atheists don't ever change their mind as to admit the existence of God.

But forgive me, suppose you google this term “ex-atheists” and see if you come to utterances from what I call die-hard atheists who claim that ex-atheists were never genuine atheists -- instead of me bringing the fact to you: for when you read something contrary to what you know from your personal stock hoard of information, then as a person who is interested to come to the objective facts of things, it is incumbent upon your honest attachment to facts to search for more information as to get to the actual objective reality of existing things.

So, google this term “ex-atheists.”




Now about Hawking that I am not understanding Hawking correctly, from Shuny...

Dear Shuny you are playing the old rancid card of exonerating some silly theorist who forgets to think with his two feet planted on the ground of the actual objective reality of existing things -- but then Hawking for already well-nigh half a century of years has not had his feet planted on the ground of actual objective reality of existing things but instead has his ass in a wheel chair, you are telling the whole world that Hawking did not say that the universe came from nothing because there is a law of gravity (and wherefore he is talking insanity)...

I told you and Leonhard to think really think on the questions that should have prompted two posters here to state that nothing is a metaphysical possibility or impossibility -- because these two original talkers have declined to do their job properly to inform readers what are the questions their utterances are supposed to answer; and as I have predicted you are running away from that challenge to you and Leonhard, namely, to do some really substantial thinking.

Now you are into exonerating Hawking from his silly utterance that the universe came from nothing because there is a law of gravity.

What do you say, should you not also just produce some cites from Hawking whereby he gives his concept of what is nothing, and then how he qualifies his utterance, and thus properly informs readers that for him nothing is not nothing but something: only he just wishes that everyone were like him without his feet planted on solid earth and understands nothing not as nothing but as something.

Suppose you just google the following phrase, “Hawking: universe comes from nothing,” and see how he did say that the universe came forth from nothing because there is a law of gravity.




Now to everyone here, let us all now study what exactly is nothing, because now someone here Shuny is telling us that there are two kinds of nothing, the absolute nothing and I understand the relative nothing.



What I notice is that atheists keep on changing the meanings of words or their implications so that now there are two kinds of everything, the absolute kind and the relative kind: so that when I say Hawking is crazy they will answer "You do not know what is craziness because Hawking is not absolutely crazy but only relatively crazy, meaning, when he uses the word nothing he means relative nothing not absolute nothing."

On that basis I will say to you Shuny that you are talking from both sides of your mouth in contradictory directions, but you will tell me that "No, I am not talking absolutely contradictory statements from both sides of my mouth, but only relatively contradictory statements."




Well, I am correct to have seen that there are what I call satanic atheists who talk from both sides of their mouth contradictory statements, and now die-hard atheists who say that ex-atheists were never genuine atheists because genuine atheists never change as to come to admit the existence of God.

Satanic atheists emulate Satan the father of lies.

Die-hard atheists also emulate Satan who for all his intellectual brilliance knowing the obviosity of God’s existence chooses to rebel against Him.

Now, addressing Zack, dear Zack thanks God that I have this chance now to really talk with an atheist who can change and not with satanic atheists and die-hard atheists.

I love to ask you what is your reaction to the topic of this thread:

There has always been something existing: yes, no?

Please answer again even if you might have already answered it, because then you will be confirming what you answered already.

You are one very abundant source of what are atheists really obsessed about, I mean the satanic atheists and the die-hard atheists, because I can see that you were neither satanic nor die-hard in your previous years as an atheist: wherefore you still had an essentially un-infected heart and mind, you had not fastened to the eye of your mind blinders so that you talked lies all the time in order to evade the obviosity of God’s existence which is what the mind sees if it were not blindered.


What should I call you, I mean the kind of atheists you were?

What about searching atheist?


I love as I said already to talk with you for you were an atheist before, specially on how you can see to the obviosity fo God's existence from the topic of this thread, namely, the question:

Has there always been something existing: yes, no?

Note to Leonhard, you have not thought out the questions to the utterances of two posters here on the possibility or impossibility of the existence of nothing, you are escaping from that challenge, but stick around, I want you to join me and Zack to talk about the topic of this thread to the obviosity of God's existence.




To readers here, I really am amazed why atheists are hanging out here in this Christian forum whose owners and operators are certainly bent on opening their minds to the existence of God in His fundamental relation to the unvierse as described in Gen. 1:1 and also the Apostles' Creed verse 1:

Gen. 1:1 -- In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

Apostles' Creed verse 1 -- I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth.

Gerry

[Leonhard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossar...light_of_ideas

Get help gerry.