• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

can nonexistence exist?

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟322,832.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
\
If only we would observe one instance of a "spontaneous" decrease in entropy ...
But alas, everything we have ever observerved goes the other way.


That’s the problem with science, it has a hard time dealing with exceptions to the rules that may have happened billions of years ago light years away in a physical environment very much unlike the one we have today.

We have never observed a God either, but that’s the conclusion you want to jump to, go figure.
 
Upvote 0

Cain Spencer

God save us all.
Mar 15, 2010
1,747
157
London
✟32,543.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Energy is the result of material interaction.
It is the effect not the cause, and no effect can transcend its cause.

If only we would observe one instance of a "spontaneous" decrease in entropy ...
But alas, everything we have ever observerved goes the other way.

No... you have it the wrong way around.

Energy makes material. Material comes about because of fusion.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟322,832.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Nothing is really ever proven, to me.
It's just that all the other ideas, I've considered, have been des-proven.
What remains is what I'm left to believe.
Then, that's tested.

In this instance there are innumerable possibilities that you both can and can't imagine.

Yet you seem to have have settled on one, so I don't believe you.
 
Upvote 0

Cain Spencer

God save us all.
Mar 15, 2010
1,747
157
London
✟32,543.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
That is pure speculation, built upon speculation, built upon speculation, ...

Matter does not come from energy.

Do you deny science as you do religion?

...when two forms of energy collide they may end up locked together due to the valencies being complete opposite. Such is how solids were formed to be solid. That is; energy + energy = solid/ matter.
 
Upvote 0

Cain Spencer

God save us all.
Mar 15, 2010
1,747
157
London
✟32,543.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Sorry Cain, but that has never been observed.

I understand that it is very popular today to believe that that is what's happening in stars, but it is just a theroy,
and it is also contrary to everything we can observe.


I belive that God created the world, that I do not deny. But why the loss of faith in science from you bricklayer? I don't understand this. My science studies were long and boring; physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and all the rest of those that were relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
My faith is what I'm left to believe.
Sponaneity and material necessity have, to me, been des-proven.
I am left to believe in material contingency and an inevitablilty to acts.

I do not believe that God opperates His creation, in the same way as do "scientists".

The entire theroy, regarding what goes on in a star, is itself based upon a belief in indedendent-trials, chance, spontaneity.
For such as chance to exist, God would be subject to it.

I am left to believe in a sovereign God, one who is never subject.

I do not dismiss that there is a nature to God's creation,
and that the understanding of that nature is science.
I simply dismiss that today's science, by its nature ,
could ever understand God.

Switching necessity from matter to engery still comes up short of the reality of a necessary God, and the true nature of His creation.
 
Upvote 0

Cain Spencer

God save us all.
Mar 15, 2010
1,747
157
London
✟32,543.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
My faith is what I'm left to believe.
Sponaneity and material necessity have, to me, been des-proven.
I am left to believe in material contingency and an inevitablilty to acts.

I do not believe that God opperates His creation, in the same way as do "scientists".

The entire theroy, regarding what goes on in a star, is itself based upon a belief in indedendent-trials, chance, spontaneity.
For such as chance to exist, God would be subject to it.

I am left to believe in a sovereign God, one who is never subject.

I do not dismiss that there is a nature to God's creation,
and that the understanding of that nature is science.
I simply dismiss that today's science, by its nature ,
could ever understand God.

Switching necessity from matter to engery still comes up short of the reality of a necessary God, and the true nature of His creation.

Sounds more complicated than it is, does it really make sense to you?
 
Upvote 0

tucker58

Jesus is Lord
Aug 30, 2007
795
55
✟25,231.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Any attempt to explicity deny existence implicitly affirms it.

Existence is self-evident, so is:
non-contradiction
identity
exclusion
causality
contingency
necessity
existential: causality, contingency and necessity
the corospondence of truth

These are among the first-principles of logic.
Any attempt to deny them is self-defeating.

Dr. Norman Geisler's treatment of the philosophical presuppositions, in the first half of volume one of his systematic theology, changed my life.

Bertrand Russell maintains that all first premises are flawed so therefore all logic is flawed :)

love,

tuck
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
A rather self-defeating position, Mr. Russell has.
I assume that his conclusion includes his logic,
which makes him easily dismissed, by his own standard.

Mr. Russell does not hold to a correspondence view of truth,
which is the root of his error.

Truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.
 
Upvote 0

daniel777

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2007
4,050
154
America
✟27,839.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
can nonexistence exist?
i'm relatively new to all this, but it looks fun so i'll give it a shot, just for fun. :p lol.

non-existence exists as a result of everything that does exist. if i cast a my hand in front of a light, it casts a shadow that exists as the absence of light. in the same way, there is a sense in which everything actually is, and there is a sense in which everything actually isn't. "is" and "isn't" are necessarily contrary. if there is a structure, there can't not be a structure. if there is a pen on the desk, there can't not be a pen on the desk. if there were not a sense in which everything actually isn't, then everything which actually is couldn't possibly be said to exist. it would all contradict. for non-existence to not exist is for it to exist. for a non-structure (or a shadow) to not exist is for it to exist. if the non-structure (or shadow) did not exist, then neither could its contrast. so, non-existence must exist in order for existence to exist.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
59
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟134,256.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Bertrand Russell maintains that all first premises are flawed so therefore all logic is flawed :)

Does that include Bertrand Russell's logic as well? If so, why should I believe him, even if he were to make sense?


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Does that include Bertrand Russell's logic as well?
I´m not really sure tucker´s paraphrasing was quite accurate. But if it was - yes, it would include Russel´s logic.
If so, why should I believe him, even if he were to make sense?
Why isn´t "it makes sense" a good enough reason to hold an opinion - particularly in the absence of a more reliable tool (such as logic - if it weren´t flawed)?
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟64,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
i'm relatively new to all this, but it looks fun so i'll give it a shot, just for fun. :p lol.

non-existence exists as a result of everything that does exist. if i cast a my hand in front of a light, it casts a shadow that exists as the absence of light. in the same way, there is a sense in which everything actually is, and there is a sense in which everything actually isn't. "is" and "isn't" are necessarily contrary. if there is a structure, there can't not be a structure. if there is a pen on the desk, there can't not be a pen on the desk. if there were not a sense in which everything actually isn't, then everything which actually is couldn't possibly be said to exist. it would all contradict. for non-existence to not exist is for it to exist. for a non-structure (or a shadow) to not exist is for it to exist. if the non-structure (or shadow) did not exist, then neither could its contrast. so, non-existence must exist in order for existence to exist.
If there is a pen on the desk, there is not no pen on the desk. That is a double negation (--p, which is the same as stating p). This does not mean that the pen both exists and does not exist, though. Singning out...
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
59
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟134,256.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why isn´t "it makes sense" a good enough reason to hold an opinion - particularly in the absence of a more reliable tool (such as logic - if it weren´t flawed)?

I don't see any clear distinction between the two. Can logic not make sense? Can good sense be illogical? I doubt that.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

daniel777

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2007
4,050
154
America
✟27,839.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If there is a pen on the desk, there is not no pen on the desk. That is a double negation (--p, which is the same as stating p). This does not mean that the pen both exists and does not exist, though. Singning out...
yeah, i know. it's ugly.... for more reasons than that one. lol, i had just tried energy drinks for the first time when i wrote that. . . . i don't need energy drinks.
 
Upvote 0