Its the definitive statement of strong atheism - there is no God - a rational, logical and justifiable statement?

Personally, agnostic atheism is as far as I can go - I can state that I dont believe in religious deities, that they are unlikely to be real and if something resembling a God exists, we currently dont know anything about it, its nature or its behaviour or even its role in the universe. This is the a logical and rational statement justifiable and demonstrable currently. This is, of course, practical atheism - one doesnt include a God in their considerations, i.e. they opine that there is no God. However, can it be rational to assert that opinion?

Ps. For christians - Seeing how satan wanted man to have knowledge while God wanted man to be suppressed and God then goes on to do horrific deeds throught the rest of the scripture, how can the apologists be sure that Satan didnt succeed in overthrowing the Lord? Because if he did, then God would be made the bad guy and put in hell and the heinious behaviour of 'God' [actually Satan before he overthrew god] would become immensely explicable.

Close thread. Proof please. I believe, if your an atheist you as well believe. Jokes on you in a way. Anyways, the best evidence we have either way is humans believing for centuries, people making claims of our unknown universe i.e: angels/gods, God-message. Absence of God is more likely to state he is staying out of the way for our betterment, than he's not there. Remember God is an all powerful being, the original conciousness is what I call him, giving him a greater chance to gather all knowledge in the universe. Once he makes us all perfectly moral through our own reason and action, not his, then we will all live together for an eternity. Simply put, your best he said she said defense would be "well he isn't there," and I counter with "it's all part of the plan." End of discussion. It is up to the one making the claim to prove the negative. I am perfectly fine assuming in God, because I believe, and on top of that, God not being there would be the negative rather than he is.

My question to all is supply evidence to support either side of the argument. If the greatst minds the interweb has to offer can't answer this we are just not looking at this from the right angel.

Its the definitive statement of strong atheism - there is no God - a rational, logical and justifiable statement?

Personally, agnostic atheism is as far as I can go - I can state that I dont believe in religious deities, that they are unlikely to be real and if something resembling a God exists, we currently dont know anything about it, its nature or its behaviour or even its role in the universe. This is the a logical and rational statement justifiable and demonstrable currently. This is, of course, practical atheism - one doesnt include a God in their considerations, i.e. they opine that there is no God. However, can it be rational to assert that opinion?

Ps. For christians - Seeing how satan wanted man to have knowledge while God wanted man to be suppressed and God then goes on to do horrific deeds throught the rest of the scripture, how can the apologists be sure that Satan didnt succeed in overthrowing the Lord? Because if he did, then God would be made the bad guy and put in hell and the heinious behaviour of 'God' [actually Satan before he overthrew god] would become immensely explicable.

Link to scripture, and what is the verse from?


-Much Thanks.

There is no need to prove. Religion is supernatural. None of that
Was proven by experiment.

What would be the point of this proof?

Depends what God you're talking about. It is perfectly logical to say there is no Christian, Jewish, or Muslim god. But we cannot discount all possible Gods, that's why I'm an atheist agnostic as well.

Composites can only become of the simplest base existent(s) combination.

The base existent(s) can only come from non-existence.

It doesn’t even matter what the base existents are, such as perhaps quarks and electrons, or even spacetime itself, but they must be simple and non-composite.

Beings are composites, and thus they cannot be First; indeed, far from it, way far from it, as in the complete other direction. Look to the far future for higher intelligences.

We actually see the more complicated coming from the lessor, and that it takes quite a while.

So, 'God' is not possible, but an alien is.

Composites can only become of the simplest base existent(s) combination.

The base existent(s) can only come from non-existence.

It doesn’t even matter what the base existents are, such as perhaps quarks and electrons, or even spacetime itself, but they must be simple and non-composite.

Beings are composites, and thus they cannot be First; indeed, far from it, way far from it, as in the complete other direction. Look to the far future for higher intelligences.

We actually see the more complicated coming from the lessor, and that it takes quite a while.

So, 'God' is not possible, but an alien is.

Something had to have been first.

There is no need to prove. Religion is supernatural. None of that
Was proven by experiment.

What would be the point of this proof?

God has little to do with religion. Re-post your point. Point of proof? Does not compute.

Something had to have been first.

No, only nothing could be first.

No, only nothing could be first.

Not logical. Something had to have been first.

Not logical. Something had to have been first.

There is no source for a first something but nothing.

And the first something could not have always been, for then there is no point at which to define its amount and its nature and properties, which again, redundantly, shows that nothing is the only source, so now we have double confirmation, but we don't need it.

Then tell me how anything came of nothing, unless we exist inside of nothing? Nothing could not have been first, as nothing does not exist, and if it did it would have properties. If it had properties, and we called it nothing that would be odd, as it has something.

No, only nothing could be first.
then that leaves you with the bind of something arising from nothing
:shrug:

Link to scripture, and what is the verse from?


-Much Thanks.

Really now? Did you miss the sermons as a child or didnt read bible stories for kids? This is common christian doctrine, not some esoteric detail unknown to the public.

then that leaves you with the bind of something arising from nothing
:shrug:

It's not a bind, it's established physics.

Then tell me how anything came of nothing, unless we exist inside of nothing? Nothing could not have been first, as nothing does not exist, and if it did it would have properties. If it had properties, and we called it nothing that would be odd, as it has something.

Yes, it is odd, but nothing does have properties, similar to a perfect crystal or absolute zero.

Its the definitive statement of strong atheism - there is no God - a rational, logical and justifiable statement?

"There is no God" is a proposition, a statement that's presumably true or false. The word 'rational' and 'logical' apply to arguments, to chains of reasoning. So in order to decide whether or not an argument concluding that 'there is no God' is a rational and/or a logical argument, we would need to have more information about how the conclusion was reached.

One you didn't mention was 'meaningful'. Is 'there is no God' even a meaningful statement? That probably would depend on whether 'God exists' is a meaningful statement, since your statement of strong atheism seems to just be the logical negation of the fundamental statement of theistic belief: not(God exists).

Two problems arise there, namely that we haven't defined what we mean by 'God' and by 'exist'.

The meaning of the word 'God' is all over the map, ranging from various mythological figures like Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu, to abstract philosophical functions like first-cause, teleological-goal or ground-of-being. It's entirely possible that some statements about some interpretations of the word 'God' are more justifiable than similar statements made about other interpretations.

And the meaning of the word 'exist' is a little mysterious in this context as well. We all know what it means for objects like tables and chairs to exist. But God is said to exist in a totally different, non-physical way. But apparently it's supposed to be a much more robust kind of existence than that enjoyed by fictional characters in literature. Even atheists would typically agree that God exists in the same way that Sherlock Holmes exists.


Personally, agnostic atheism is as far as I can go

I'll say the same thing too.

I'm a strong-atheist about the traditional deities of religious myth. In other words, I flat-out believe that Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu don't exist. That's a probabilistic denial, though in my opinion it's a fairly strong one. But it isn't an apodictic logically-necessary conclusion. It's still logically possible that I'm wrong and that Christianity (or whatever it might be) is true.

But having said that, I'm an agnostic about the philosophical functions. I don't know how or why the universe exists. I don't know if it has any goal or function. I don't know what the ultimate fundamental level of being is. All that stuff is way above my pay-grade and I don't expect that I'll ever know.

What I am strongly convinced about though, is that humanity's traditional theistic religious mythologies don't bring me a whole lot closer to answering those kind of big philosophical questions.

Then tell me how anything came of nothing, unless we exist inside of nothing? Nothing could not have been first, as nothing does not exist, and if it did it would have properties. If it had properties, and we called it nothing that would be odd, as it has something.

Either the basic stuff existed always or it was made from nothing.

If always, then the stuff is of a set amount.

Stuff cannot have always been, since there would have been no point at which its total amount could have been specified, nor its form and makeup; therefore, this forces the other option, that of a distribution of nothing—a zero-sum balance of opposites—as confirmed in nature. Plus, there is nothing to make anything of, literally. Double confirmation, plus a third one, that seen in nature.

Since all from nothing must be so, we now know that a state of the lack of anything must be unstable, and that anything goes, since the state is lawless, and so various arrangements of basic stuff may occur, some of which can form workable universes.

For sure, only a no-thing can make the basic thing(s), since, for certain, there is no other source. No way around it. So, we have to deal with this, but it goes well.

Did a lack of anything (no-thing) remain as such? Again, for sure, we know that it didn’t, for there is some-thing, as sum-things. So, that’s out, with no doubt.

What rules, restrictions, limitations, etc., would apply to no-thing? None, for the lack-of-anything state would have no laws at all.

This means that any-thing goes, for no-thing, and when anything goes, something workable can come out of it. This is what is meant by ‘possibility’, and one can see that it must be the default position.

There are no past-eternals beyond nothing. All supposed past-eternities of things end with nothing. Eternities, and infinities, by definition and in actuality, can never complete.

No Fine Tuning (in the way it is thought to be)

1. If there can be one universe there can be another.

2. We actually see that the universe is even greatly accelerating.

3. Thus, what fueled the universe is the fuel that keeps on giving.

4. So, again, other universes are possible from this fuel, which is that of nothing dividing and creating.

5. Therefore there will be a universe in which the amount of dark energy is right enough for galaxies to form.

6. So then there will be suns and planets there (as here), some of which are in the right ballpark for life.

7. We can only find ourselves in a universe that has the right properties. In other universes there is no one around to remark about about how ‘remarkable’ it is.

Really now? Did you miss the sermons as a child or didnt read bible stories for kids? This is common christian doctrine, not some esoteric detail unknown to the public.

I cried a lot in church, and usually saw through the bologna. What's it from?

No Fine Tuning (in the way it is thought to be)

1. If there can be one universe there can be another.

2. We actually see that the universe is even greatly accelerating.

3. Thus, what fueled the universe is the fuel that keeps on giving.

4. So, again, other universes are possible from this fuel, which is that of nothing dividing and creating.

5. Therefore there will be a universe in which the amount of dark energy is right enough for galaxies to form.

6. So then there will be suns and planets there (as here), some of which are in the right ballpark for life.

7. We can only find ourselves in a universe that has the right properties. In other universes there is no one around to remark about about how ‘remarkable’ it is.

Do we need to go through the likelihood of even one universe had evolved from "nothing?" The only problem I see with theory of evolution is the lengthy time it takes to notice something had have changed. Theoretically one universe is defiantly possible, but two universes having evolved from the same nothing, is uber unlikely. Unless, there are thousands upon thousands of non-quality universes.

NOTE: Universe is everything. If we discover another universe its part of our universe. There can only be one everything.

How do you calculate that likelihood? Or is it just the result of your personal incredulity?

How do you calculate that likelihood? Or is it just the result of your personal incredulity?

What am unable to believe? Common sense gets the job done.

then that leaves you with the bind of something arising from nothing
:shrug:

Right.

A lot of discussion here on Sciforums makes what in my opinion is the basic error of imagining nothing or non-existence as if it is some dark and mysterious place, a super-cosmic void of some kind, out of which everything, the entire universe, flows and emanates.

That, btw, isn't dissimilar from many traditional religious ideas. God is often thought of as being beyond human concepts entirely, a kind of transcendental cognitive void that can only be approached apophatically, by clearing one's mind of phenomenal images. A great deal of Indian thought moves in that direction, as does Neoplatonism and the whole 'negative theology' stream in Christian and Islamic theology and mysticism. God is the ultimate inconceivable One, the unity out of which all the diversity and multiplicity of phenomenal reality flows, like light emanating from the Sun.

In my opinion, nothing is probably better thought of as a limiting concept than as a transcendental being. 'Nothing' is a term that marks out the limits of being. A boundary that doesn't separate being from some different (and infinitely productive) kind of being on the other side called 'nothing', but rather a boundary that only has one side, where it's meaningless to even speak of there being a beyond.

So instead of 'something coming from nothing', what we perhaps should be talking about are causal anomalies inside being, namely things and events that simply occur or come into being without any explanation or prior cause. It's effectively the same thing, but it doesn't land us in the fundamental philosophical difficulty of imagining nothing as if it was something.

I don't think that the 'out of nothing' idea successfully answers any of our ontological questions. It's just a way of avoiding those questions, and for that reason it's seemingly just as uninformative and ad-hoc as the ancient religious cosmologies that it's meant to replace. In other words, I don't think that it's adding anything tangible or useful to our knowledge.

What am unable to believe? Common sense gets the job done.

If common sense worked, there would be no need for science.

If common sense worked, there would be no need for science.

It works for me... Maybe you aren't paying attention?

EDIT: Common sense, like instincts. Science is necessary for all as he is what validates all of this.

NOTE: Universe is everything. If we discover another universe its part of our universe. There can only be one everything.

We can call it the greater Cosmos or the multiverse.

The arguments and conclusions for 'nothing' are unavoidable and unvoidable.

We can call it the greater Cosmos or the multiverse.

The arguments and conclusions for 'nothing' are unavoidable and unvoidable.

Thats silly. Why segregate A from B? Were not quit through with the nothing debate. That one is the next "free will" debate.

Thats silly. Why segregate A from B? Were not quit through with the nothing debate. That one is the next "free will" debate.

Because our universe wasn't here 14 billion years ago.

The 'nothing' 'debate' conclusion cannot be countered.

When people talk about the Universe coming from nothing it is really a Universe centric view. By saying our Universe came to exist from nothing all you are really saying is that "before" the Universe existed there was nothing in the Universe(and no Universe). That in no way indicates anything about conditions that exist outside our Universe, whether there are other universes, if there are cycles of universes, if we are just a small soap bubble in the big bubble bath of the multiverse, the "Cosmic Foam", if you will.

The evidence points directly at a beginning of space and time(and everything within)some 13.7 billion years ago in the half dimension we call time(half because we can only travel one direction in time, which is in the direction of increasing entrophy). As to the other three dimensions you can point to the middle of your chest and you are pointing at the exact point at which the Big Bang began in space.

I do not know that there is no god, though I see no valid evidence to think so. But I make no claims of god's non-existence, it is no more provable than claims that there is a god. And while abscence of evidence for god existing is not proof he does not exist it is convincing evidence of his non-existence through logic. Why posit entities for which no need can be shown? Occam tells us not to.

Grumpy:cool:

And the meaning of the word 'exist' is a little mysterious in this context as well. We all know what it means for objects like tables and chairs to exist. But God is said to exist in a totally different, non-physical way. But apparently it's supposed to be a much more robust kind of existence than that enjoyed by fictional characters in literature. Even atheists would typically agree that God exists in the same way that Sherlock Holmes exists.

Agreed. The baggage that the word God has attached to it as well as the cultural and social function attached to religion are what cause even rational, well informed people to remain theists/ keep attending religious institutions [a prime example of this would be Sweden, where a majority are atheists and yet a majority are connected to churches too]. Being a lifelong introvert, it very easy for me to give up my religion and being in a formative stage meant I had less baggage as well. But the main question to raise here would be how far can one stretch the concept before calling it God is meaningless?


I'm a strong-atheist about the traditional deities of religious myth. In other words, I flat-out believe that Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu don't exist. That's a probabilistic denial, though in my opinion it's a fairly strong one. But it isn't an apodictic logically-necessary conclusion. It's still logically possible that I'm wrong and that Christianity (or whatever it might be) is true.

But having said that, I'm an agnostic about the philosophical functions. I don't know how or why the universe exists. I don't know if it has any goal or function. I don't know what the ultimate fundamental level of being is. All that stuff is way above my pay-grade and I don't expect that I'll ever know.

I completely agree. Well stated, couldnt have said this well myself.


What I am strongly convinced about though, is that humanity's traditional theistic religious mythologies don't bring me a whole lot closer to answering those kind of big philosophical questions.

Indeed. However, what kind and amount of usefulness would you assign to religions as social, cultural, political and spiritual tools rather than a philosophical one [for which science is certainly the winner].

I cried a lot in church,

Um, why?


and usually saw through the bologna.


I dont get what you are refering to,


What's it from?

Again, no context!

Close thread. Proof please. I believe, if your an atheist you as well believe. Jokes on you in a way. Anyways, the best evidence we have either way is humans believing for centuries, people making claims of our unknown universe i.e: angels/gods, God-message. Absence of God is more likely to state he is staying out of the way for our betterment, than he's not there. Remember God is an all powerful being, the original conciousness is what I call him, giving him a greater chance to gather all knowledge in the universe. Once he makes us all perfectly moral through our own reason and action, not his, then we will all live together for an eternity. Simply put, your best he said she said defense would be "well he isn't there," and I counter with "it's all part of the plan." End of discussion. It is up to the one making the claim to prove the negative. I am perfectly fine assuming in God, because I believe, and on top of that, God not being there would be the negative rather than he is.

My question to all is supply evidence to support either side of the argument. If the greatst minds the interweb has to offer can't answer this we are just not looking at this from the right angel.

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
― Charles Bukowski

Something had to have been first.

Actually, the Universe appear physically to have come from nothing spontaneously. The observations match up with this quite nicely. I'll see if I can't find the link to a video when I get home (in a couple weeks...)

When people talk about the Universe coming from nothing it is really a Universe centric view. By saying our Universe came to exist from nothing all you are really saying is that "before" the Universe existed there was nothing in the Universe(and no Universe). That in no way indicates anything about conditions that exist outside our Universe, whether there are other universes, if there are cycles of universes, if we are just a small soap bubble in the big bubble bath of the multiverse, the "Cosmic Foam", if you will.

The evidence points directly at a beginning of space and time(and everything within)some 13.7 billion years ago in the half dimension we call time(half because we can only travel one direction in time, which is in the direction of increasing entrophy). As to the other three dimensions you can point to the middle of your chest and you are pointing at the exact point at which the Big Bang began in space.

I do not know that there is no god, though I see no valid evidence to think so. But I make no claims of god's non-existence, it is no more provable than claims that there is a god. And while abscence of evidence for god existing is not proof he does not exist it is convincing evidence of his non-existence through logic. Why posit entities for which no need can be shown? Occam tells us not to.

It is funny that you should criticize an ex nihilo origin by citing a "Universe centric view" when your "convincing evidence" is just as universe-centric.

Ps. For christians - Seeing how satan wanted man to have knowledge while God wanted man to be suppressed and God then goes on to do horrific deeds throught the rest of the scripture,

Link to scripture, and what is the verse from?



Genesis.

The serpent (Satan) offers Eve a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. It was God's desire that Adam and Eve never partake of the Tree of Knowledge. He wanted them to remain innocent in Eden. His wrath that they sampled from the ToK is what caused him to throw them out of Eden and live naked, and ashamed in the world, with their newfound knowledge as their curse.

This is a commonly-accepted interpretation of the events of Genesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28Bible%29#Serpent_in_Eden

Um, why?




I dont get what you are refering to,



Again, no context!

My mother never let go of my ear, it was boring, and made little sense. Just link me to your scripture?

My mother never let go of my ear, it was boring, and made little sense. Just link me to your scripture?

I just posted a link to a Wiki synopsis on it.

It's not a bind, it's established physics.
huh?

In physics, "nothing" is technically an impossible term

Actually, the Universe appear physically to have come from nothing spontaneously. The observations match up with this quite nicely. I'll see if I can't find the link to a video when I get home (in a couple weeks...)

Wait. You have a video containing observations of the creation of the universe??

Cosmologists will beat a path to your door!

:D

Actually, the Universe appear physically to have come from nothing spontaneously. The observations match up with this quite nicely. I'll see if I can't find the link to a video when I get home (in a couple weeks...)

That plain makes no sense to me.

There is no need to prove. Religion is supernatural. None of that
Was proven by experiment.

What would be the point of this proof?

Just try to understand God, religion, angels, devils, sin, good acts, Goa at prime & gross level---means basics of sprituals by discuusions at following link:-

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=206010

Just ignore the odds, since scepticision can make people to dout & aurge.

Good luck.

huh?

In physics, "nothing" is technically an impossible term

That's the whole point.

@ Knowledge please watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

That plain makes no sense to me.

Neither from nothing nor stuff forever seem to make sense at first glance, yet one must be true, so… one of them is the answer, and neither one is 'God'; thus, no 'God'. The end. Finis.

@ Knowledge please watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

Ok. Im agnostic, and I have faith in God. I do believe he is real, so I am searching for this proof, but consider who God is. Its not exactly like were lacking technology to search for him. We're looking for something with no equal except everything good & evil plus God himself. We can not expect to find something so powerful with simple observation, excavation, and historical investigation. He can be hiding in plain sight, not behind the bush, but as the bush. If he has reason to stay out of the way, he will stay out of the way.

What reason would he have to let us kill each other, instead of him saving us all right now?

We should open a investigation into the faithful of God. Test them on things from morality, to wisdom. Also, we must come up with a test to test faith, and test to tell deception. I pull an atheist can be a faithful as well.

Neither from nothing nor stuff forever seem to make sense at first glance, yet one must be true, so… one of them is the answer, and neither one is 'God'; thus, no 'God'. The end. Finis.

The universe going on forever makes sense. Eventually you get sucked into the vacuum, but maybe there is a little center to the universe in which "nothing" once existed.

So were totally cool with believing in NOTHING, over something all powerful existing?

Don't worry, it didn't exist long. In fact, the notion of time didn't exist when there was nothing.

Where did this nothing come from?

The universe going on forever makes sense. Eventually you get sucked into the vacuum, but maybe there is a little center to the universe in which "nothing" once existed.

So were totally cool with believing in NOTHING, over something all powerful existing?

The universe may go on a long time, dispersing, over trillions upon trillions of years, the remaining photons ending up so far apart that they are nowhere near each other. And so this is what our beginnings meant, which is not much.

No choice on the NOTHING. No contest. No way around it. Emotion can try to still have it, but that is just a comfort, not a bill of goods.

All Powerful is out, a zillion times over. We may become more intelligent in the future. Knowledge91 may go on to Knowledge999…

Where did this nothing come from?

It requires nothing prior, which you could take two ways.

Ok. Im agnostic, and I have faith in God. I do believe he is real, so I am searching for this proof, but consider who God is. Its not exactly like were lacking technology to search for him. We're looking for something with no equal except everything good & evil plus God himself. We can not expect to find something so powerful with simple observation, excavation, and historical investigation. He can be hiding in plain sight, not behind the bush, but as the bush. If he has reason to stay out of the way, he will stay out of the way.

What reason would he have to let us kill each other, instead of him saving us all right now?

We should open a investigation into the faithful of God. Test them on things from morality, to wisdom. Also, we must come up with a test to test faith, and test to tell deception. I pull an atheist can be a faithful as well.
:facepalm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234&feature=channel&list=UL

There is no need to prove. Religion is supernatural. None of that
Was proven by experiment.

What would be the point of this proof?

Yes, I absolutely agree with you. Also as a conscious people, we should try to know true. I always believe that everything is controlled by supreme power. From my life experience, I can feel that how powerless we are, we are like a insect.

Ex Nihilo:
The Real Book of Genesis

1 First, as ever and always, nothing made the heavens and the Earth, since there was nothing to make it of. Technically, nothing made the teeny-tiny secondary ‘elementals’, as opposite pairs, before their subsequent combinations, which then went on to form higher complexities, even us.

2 The Earth was once without form, and void [zilch], and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of nothing was moving over the face of the waters. Hey, what waters? Water came later. No waters.

3 And not a thing said, “Let there be light”, and there were photons, and a big electric bill, too. And then as well came forth electrons, quarks, and their anti-particles of opposite matter and charge, ever still summing to the sum-thing zero-balance of nothing. OK, now we’re cooking.

4 And nullity saw that the light was good; and nil separated all the more the light from the darkness in equipoise of positive and negative.

5 Zero called the light day, and the darkness it called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one fine day, and even an afternoon. It was Oneday. Yes, even out in space.

6 And void said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” The “waters” must have been mirages, for there weren’t no waters before all, nohow, no way.

7 And naught made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. Water, water not everywhere, nor any drops to drink!

8 And zip called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day, plus a yesterday and a tomorrow to come. It was Twosday.

9 And nada said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. Finally, water was in its proper place, as really having become of H2O.

10 Diddly-squat called the dry land earth, and the waters that were gathered together it called seas. And nobody saw that it was good.

11 And not anything said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth, plus very many weeds.” And it was so.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. Duh, that was expected. And trifle saw that it was good. Um, wait, there was evolution.

13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. OK already; we get the day to day thing. It was Wedding-day.

14 And no big deal said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years and weeks and months and seasons and years and millennia and eternity.”

15 “And let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. Actually, protons made the stars.

16 And neither here nor there made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. This was before Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.

17 And nonentity set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, meaning that they really slowly formed—

18 To rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And no-name saw that it was good. Alright, let’s get on with it already.

19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Cripes! Sure Happy It’s Thursday, or Thirstday.

20 And God Damnit Nothing said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, even mosquitoes, I guess, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” So immutable! Evolution, remember?

21 So nonperson created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And Lloyd saw that it was good.

22 And nothing blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the Earth.”

23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Thank God It’s Friday, or Fryday.

24 And positive/negative said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” Dinosaurs were not known of. And it was so. What a zoo.

25 And lack of anything made the beasts of the Earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And zippo saw that it was really getting darned good, although getting really crowded.

26 Then yin/yang said, to his wife? “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; (bad move) and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” Hmmm… the poor subservient animals and the environment.

27 So love (zero in tennis) created man in his own image, in the image of empty he created him; male and female, and gays and lesbians he created them. Is that “own image” why we are so flawed?

28 And vacant blessed them, while unoccupied said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; (so much for the environment again) and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Maybe humans should use birth control and mostly multiply with calculators?

29 And bare said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.”

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. Just like that?

31 And clear saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very damned good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. Sitting day, or Satday.

It requires nothing prior, which you could take two ways.

So we fazed in from absolutely nothing? You must be a Christian.

Where did this nothing come from?

Previous somethings perhaps. Not sure how nothing requires an explanation.

Previous somethings perhaps. Not sure how nothing requires an explanation.

Im not sure how nothing has the necessary ingredients to create say... water?

That's because you only see water, not anti-water. Matter and anti-matter can react and cancel each other out, leaving only energy. Run that in reverse, and from nothing you get both.

:facepalm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234&feature=channel&list=UL

You bring up good points. You can't fathom yet why these things have to happen in nature. However, God is not a car. Christians bought and sold him like one, but there is a scientific approach to God. Maybe the point is to build our own car, and apply it. Maybe God isn't a car, but he built one and its parked in his garage? Surly you can imagine how God has the cloak of invisibility. Once we build our own car to show with his car, then we truly are worthy, no questions asked. Thats why we don't know?

So we fazed in from absolutely nothing? You must be a Christian.

Absolutely. No.


The Bible has two versions of Genesis, and so I have another one, too:



Genesis Version 2

1 Thus the heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day hollow finished his work which it had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which it had done. (redundant and repetitious) Sundae on Sunday.

3 So idle blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it nugatory rested from all the work which it had done in creation.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and the Earth when they were created. In the day that the lord worthless made the Earth and the heavens. I think we said that before.

5 When no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for the lord useless had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;

6 But a mist went up from the earth from a big sprinkler and watered the whole face of the ground—

7 Then the lord insubstantial formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Yeah, sure. Forgetting evolution again?

8 And the lord pointless planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground the lord worthless made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the apple tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.

11 the name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; (Yukon, Alaska, California?)

12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.

13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush.

14 And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The lord meaningless took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. Poor choice.

16 And the lord valueless commanded the man, saying, “you may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

18 Then the lord barren said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Does she paint ceilings and cut the grass?

19 So out of the ground the lord insignificant formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; (Rover, Lady, Buddy, and Spot) And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (Hey, you!)

20 The man gave names to all cattle, (Elsie) and to the birds of the air, (birds) and to every beast of the field; (it) but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. Hard to get good help these days.

21 So the lord inconsequential caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; She would really cost the man an arm and a leg eventually.

22 And the rib which the lord trivial had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Some helper!

23 Then the man said, “wo, man, this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.”

24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Get lost in-laws! Now you are out-laws.

25 And the man and his wife were both naked, (yes!) and were not ashamed.

…

99. And that’s the story of deadpan and absent, whose middle name is nothing.

Let’s leave it at ‘naked’.

Absolutely. No.


The Bible has two versions of Genesis, and so I have another one, too:



Genesis Version 2

1 Thus the heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day hollow finished his work which it had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which it had done. (redundant and repetitious) Sundae on Sunday.

3 So idle blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it nugatory rested from all the work which it had done in creation.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and the Earth when they were created. In the day that the lord worthless made the Earth and the heavens. I think we said that before.

5 When no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for the lord useless had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;

6 But a mist went up from the earth from a big sprinkler and watered the whole face of the ground—

7 Then the lord insubstantial formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Yeah, sure. Forgetting evolution again?

8 And the lord pointless planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground the lord worthless made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the apple tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.

11 the name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; (Yukon, Alaska, California?)

12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.

13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush.

14 And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The lord meaningless took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. Poor choice.

16 And the lord valueless commanded the man, saying, “you may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

18 Then the lord barren said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Does she paint ceilings and cut the grass?

19 So out of the ground the lord insignificant formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; (Rover, Lady, Buddy, and Spot) And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (Hey, you!)

20 The man gave names to all cattle, (Elsie) and to the birds of the air, (birds) and to every beast of the field; (it) but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. Hard to get good help these days.

21 So the lord inconsequential caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; She would really cost the man an arm and a leg eventually.

22 And the rib which the lord trivial had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Some helper!

23 Then the man said, “wo, man, this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.”

24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Get lost in-laws! Now you are out-laws.

25 And the man and his wife were both naked, (yes!) and were not ashamed.

…

99. And that’s the story of deadpan and absent, whose middle name is nothing.

Let’s leave it at ‘naked’.

Honestly, summary or nothing.

Honestly, summary or nothing.

OK. The summary is nothing.

Genesis.

The serpent (Satan) offers Eve a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. It was God's desire that Adam and Eve never partake of the Tree of Knowledge. He wanted them to remain innocent in Eden. His wrath that they sampled from the ToK is what caused him to throw them out of Eden and live naked, and ashamed in the world, with their newfound knowledge as their curse.

This is a commonly-accepted interpretation of the events of Genesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28Bible%29#Serpent_in_Eden



...you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. -Genesis 2

Where exactly are you reading anything about "God's desire"? Seem a rather straightforward warning about natural consequences. An expressed desire would have been to leave no option at all, as opposed to allowing the exercise of free will.

Where exactly are you reading anything about "God's desire"? Seem a rather straightforward warning about natural consequences. An expressed desire would have been to leave no option at all, as opposed to allowing the exercise of free will.
He warned them not to. Forbade them. When they did, he banished them.

Those "natural consequences" you speak of are God's actions There is no "nature" but what God does. He banished them.

He warned them not to. Forbade them. When they did, he banished them.

Those "natural consequences" you speak of are God's actions There is no "nature" but what God does. He banished them.

Oh, you are a Biblical fundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism) then? I was under the impression that you were an atheist, who didn't think there was any god to take such action.

Oh, you are a Biblical fundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism) then? I was under the impression that you were an atheist, who didn't think there was any god to take such action.You can't possibly be serious.

Tell me, if I said "Moriarty fought with Holmes in the shadow of the waterfall, and one of them died", would you believe I had to think Holmes and Moriarty were real to be able to say that?

You can't possibly be serious.

Tell me, if I said "Moriarty fought with Holmes in the shadow of the waterfall, and one of them died", would you believe I had to think Holmes and Moriarty were real to be able to say that?

What on earth does taking the Bible literally have to do with whether a god exists? If you are indeed an atheist then you must agree that any consequences must be natural.

So exactly what argument are you trying to make by saying "God did it"? Don't you see any incongruity here?

What on earth does taking the Bible literally have to do with whether a god exists? If you are indeed an atheist then you must agree that any consequences must be natural.
Indeed, as an atheist, I don't believe in Adam, Eve or Eden either. I would think the first time I mentioned any one of those things you would recognize that I am speaking with a suspension of disbelief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief).


So exactly what argument are you trying to make
I'm not making any argument here. K91 asked or an explanation of a scripture. I am providing the prevailing explanation.

Please, before you respond, review post 3 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2946708&postcount=3) where he asks, post 20 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2947140&postcount=20) where he asks again, and finally, post 36 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2947140&postcount=20) where I provide.

I make absolutely no comment about whether there's any truth or falsehood to it.

I make absolutely no comment about whether there's any truth or falsehood to it.

Then why not speak from your own worldview? Obviously you do think consequences are naturalistic. So if scripture, written by men, alludes to some perception of the consequences being beyond their ken, i.e. attributed to a god, why, in your view, would you chose to accept their perceptions as given?

Why comment on it at all if you have no intent of applying your own view and logic to it?

Neither from nothing nor stuff forever seem to make sense at first glance,

The two cases are philosophically different.

"Stuff forever" seems to refer to an infinite regress. The seeming problem with infinite regresses is that they are physical infinities, and we don't seem to encounter physical infinities in our experience. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are logically or even physically impossible though. Infinities certainly occur in mathematics and perhaps they even occasionally pop up in physics, in so-called 'singularities' (as in black holes). The future is typicaly imagined as temporally unbounded, I think, extending forever.

"From nothing" presents a different sort of difficulty. The idea of something "coming from" nothing suggests that 'nothing' is some kind of hidden place, and hence that 'nothing' is an occult sort of 'something'. And that appears to be a logical contradiction.

So the 'from nothing' case doesn't seem to just be a violation of our common-sense physical intuitions, as the 'stuff forever' case seems to be. This one looks like a logical problem.


yet one must be true

Do we really know that? Can we really close the door on what all the possibilities might ultimately be?

Christian and Hindu philosophical theologies often suggest that the universe 'comes from', was created by or emanates from, some timeless supernatural being. So that's an example of a third possibility, namely the possibility that time is part of the creation. Whatever kind of 'something' generates the universe of our experience inhabits some entirely different order of being that we humans can't even imagine, outside space and time entirely.


so… one of them is the answer, and neither one is 'God'; thus, no 'God'.

From where I sit, your mysterious occult 'nothing' looks like a unitive and infinitely-generative Transcendental Being, and that sounds an awful lot like some of Christian, Islamic and Indian theologies' more mystical concepts of God.

The ancient Neoplatonists imagined the universe of change and multiplicity emanating like light from the Sun, from a transcendent and timeless divine unity that they called 'The One'. The late-antique Christians adopted that kind of thinking and applied it to their Christian God. The Muslims inherited and adopted these ideas. And very similar ideas are fundamental in much of Indian religious philosophy.

These ideas are often associated with religious mysticism. The divine Source is said to lie beyond human conceptualization entirely. In other words, conceptually speaking it's Nothing, corresponding to nothing that we humans can possibly imagine. It's the infinitely-productive Void out of which everything that exists in our phenomenal universe flows.

The way to immediately perceive and perhaps even to merge with the divine Source is to practice meditations in which the mystic clears his or her mind of all phenomental this-worldly images and concepts. In the Christian tradition, this is called 'apophatic' or 'negative' theology. It remains widespread in Eastern Orthodox theology and it's found among the Roman Catholic contemplatives as well. The medieval English 'Cloud of Unknowing' is an example.

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/courses/rel3432/cataapophatic1.htm

So bottom line, arguing that the universe 'came from', was generated by or emanated from 'nothing', looks to my eye a lot like traditional religious theology, repackaged in new and ostensibly atheist form.

Then why not speak from your own worldview? Obviously you do think consequences are naturalistic. So if scripture, written by men, alludes to some perception of the consequences being beyond their ken, i.e. attributed to a god, why, in your view, would you chose to accept their perceptions as given?

Why comment on it at all if you have no intent of applying your own view and logic to it?

I didn't comment, I answered a question. We're having a discussion.

I ask you a third time. If we were discussing the events of Sherlock Holmes' final days, would you simply keep responding with "Irrelevant! It's fiction!"

Answer this question for yourself, and all your questions about me will go away.

"Stuff forever" seems to refer to an infinite regress.

There are two cases, both of which are the same exact stuff forever.

1) It's made of smaller and smaller stuff—an infinite regress, logically impossible since it never gets anywhere, since infinities can never complete.

2) No regress of things coming from lessor things, just the same exact base existents always having been around. Similar problem though, but with duration, as eternities can never complete, plus no point at which the total amount could have been 'decided'.

So, stuff forever is impossible, thus the base stuff has to be created, but not from other stuff, so, then it must be from the lack of anything, which doesn't have rules, a logical deduction. And we already knew that there was nothing to make anything of. And that nature shows a balance. And that infinities and eternities can never complete, thus the beginning must be nothing. Four directives, in total, all for nothing.

No occult.

More in awhile, if I reread and find more.

"From nothing" presents a different sort of difficulty. The idea of something "coming from" nothing suggests that 'nothing' is some kind of hidden place, and hence that 'nothing' is an occult sort of 'something'. And that appears to be a logical contradiction.

A lack of anything is a possible state, logically. Stuff Forever seems to have no logic, as posted, as possible.

So, now, a lack of anything is not a stable arrangement (as there is something), nor are even simple things, for sure, as most readily go through changes or react. Stronger, since nothing is the only source, and did not remain as such, it is perfectly unstable, and cannot be, stay, or last for even an instant.

Transcendental Being

A Being is not Nothing or Stuff Forever. Stuff is either forever or it is made. Only two possibilities.

Stuff cannot be already made in a set amount and defined without ever having been made in that set amount and defined in its specific form and properties.

Word like 'transcendental', 'immaterial', 'soul', etc. don't get us things or beings away from 'stuff'. Dealing with stuff requires other stuff to talk the stuff of stuff, so to speak. That was DesCartes before Horace, which happens only in the dictionary. All has to walk the walk and talk the talk. Immaterial non-stuff cannot be affecting stuff, and also cannot be, anyway, but for Nothing, the only possibility, which is the simplest state, and not a being.

Being and consciousness takes billions of years to form from Nothing forming a universe in the Cosmos.

I didn't comment, I answered a question. We're having a discussion.

Yes, you did answer a question, but not without a comment on the meaning of that answer:



It was God's desire that Adam and Eve never partake of the Tree of Knowledge. He wanted them to remain innocent in Eden.

And to support that comment you made an incongruous argument:



Those "natural consequences" you speak of are God's actions There is no "nature" but what God does.


I ask you a third time. If we were discussing the events of Sherlock Holmes' final days, would you simply keep responding with "Irrelevant! It's fiction!"

Don't exaggerate. This is only the second time you have asked me this.

If we were discussing Sherlock Holmes then both of us would be in full agreement that it was expressly written as a work of fiction. Any such assumed agreement on any scripture is highly likely to be unilateral. So this is either obtuse or a dodge.

Knowing that it is definitely written as, much less likely to be considered, non-fiction, the perceptions of the authors are crucial in any consideration of meaning.

But even considering scripture to be fiction, I would not bother to argue its meaning as if it mattered at all, much less comment as to the imagined desires of a fictional character.

Now, do you care to address your incongruity without further red herrings?

It's the infinitely-productive Void out of which everything that exists in our phenomenal universe flows.

That's it, and a void is a void is a void, even by any other synonym, but not Divine, 'God', a supernatural Being, a Planner, a Higher Intelligence, or the God of the three main religions. So, some exaggerated on the basis of a human, strict father figure, perhaps.

All has been rational, logical, and justifiable, as well as moving closer to the Theory of Everything: Nothing, which some may call 'causeless', which is about the same idea, but Nothing can only produce tiny stuff, seemingly always in opposite pairs, not fully formed humans, so, the cause is nothing, but the cause is Nothing.

Yes, you did answer a question, but not without a comment on the meaning of that answer:

I quoted the words. Forbade. Warned. Banished. That is not personal comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28Bible%29#Serpent_in_Eden
first and second paragraphs under Serpent in Eden.


But even considering scripture to be fiction, I would not bother to argue its meaning as if it mattered at all, much less comment as to the imagined desires of a fictional character.
OK, you would not bother. What does that have to do with me?


Now, do you care to address your incongruity without further red herrings?

Seriously, you are totally misreading this. Back in post 36, I explain to K91 where the scripture is, and since, in post 61 K91 asked for a summary, I provided the commonly-accepted interpretation - which I pulled from Wiki (see above link).

When you questioned me about it, I clarified for you that God's desire is part of the commonly-accepted interpretation of those verses of the Bible. Whether or not I believe the stories are true, I am capable of analyzing them, just as I am capable of analyzing a character in a story without being accused of believing the story is real. (In fact, it's exactly the same.)

You seem to think that opponents in a debate are enemies - that I can't help an opponent through a technicality of clarification, even if it costs me nothing and moves the debate along.

Yes, you did answer a question, but not without a comment on the meaning of that answer:
It was God's desire that Adam and Eve never partake of the Tree of Knowledge. He wanted them to remain innocent in Eden. I quoted the words. Forbade. Warned. Banished. That is not personal comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28Bible%29#Serpent_in_Eden
first and second paragraphs under Serpent in Eden.

Wow, just wow. I question the scriptural source for your assumption of God's desire and you not only completely dodge addressing that but you quote a wiki in lieu of the actual scripture.



But even considering scripture to be fiction, I would not bother to argue its meaning as if it mattered at all, much less comment as to the imagined desires of a fictional character. OK, you would not bother. What does that have to do with me?

Uh, you're the one who made the big deal about ME answering this question. Your memory is not what it use to be, huh?



Now, do you care to address your incongruity without further red herrings? Seriously, you are totally misreading this. Back in post 36, I explain to K91 where the scripture is, and since, in post 61 K91 asked for a summary, I provided the commonly-accepted interpretation - which I pulled from Wiki (see above link).

Now you are trying to completely rewrite this exchange. Post #61 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2947577#post2947577) asked SciWriter for a summary of his version of Genesis, and this was well past your response to K91 in Post #36 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2947324#post2947324).

You haven't even responded to K91 since I've joined this discussion. So either your memory is slipping fast or you are dishonest. So exactly how am I "misreading" all these duplicitous red herrings.


When you questioned me about it, I clarified for you that God's desire is part of the commonly-accepted interpretation of those verses of the Bible. Whether or not I believe the stories are true, I am capable of analyzing them, just as I am capable of analyzing a character in a story without being accused of believing the story is real. (In fact, it's exactly the same.)

God's desire is not part of the commonly-accepted interpretation, as the Bible only provides the words and actions, not intent. You have taken a very few words to infer a desire not expressed.

Would you equally attribute desires, thoughts, or intent to any other character of fiction in which none of these are expressed? Do you really sit around and wonder, much less discuss, the intent of Sherlock Holmes in choosing to wear a dearstalker hat? Perhaps you have too much free time on your hands.

But I see you are fully committed to your red herring.


You seem to think that opponents in a debate are enemies - that I can't help an opponent through a technicality of clarification, even if it costs me nothing and moves the debate along.

Ah, when all else threatens to fail throw in an appeal to emotion.