First cause

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, lets find out who is really talking rubbish.
Tell me honestly:
1. if there were no atoms between you and me, would we no longer be separated?
2. Are all atoms in existence between you and me, and what does between you and me mean anyway? How do you tell 'where' something is, if its location is just a figment of your imagination?
3. Is there matte ...[text shortened]... t.


Now stop trying to run around in circles and admit that you are wrong and you know it.

1. if there were no atoms between you and me, would we no longer be separated? whitey

KM- I don't know what happens when all physical reality is removed. Neither do you I guess. Would there be a vaccuum between us , who knows . Can a vaccuum really exist. I imagine it would be like what happens if you take a scoop of water out of a bath tub- the rest of the water rushes in to fill the "hole"?

2. Are all atoms in existence between you and me, and what does between you and me mean anyway? How do you tell 'where' something is, if its location is just a figment of your imagination?

KM- It's location is a figment of imagination , you cannot fix anything in a static position in this universe because the pesky thing is moving all the time. You can only establish a relative location.

3. Is there matter between an atoms nucleus and its electrons? If not, are they not separated from each other?

KM-Another question that's not possible to answer. There is certainly energy keeping them apart , it doesn't have to be matter. I'm sure "distance" isn't keeping them apart.

Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the concept of distance or time or logic , they are all very valuable ways of making sense of the world. It's when people jump to thinking that these things actually are in the world that I object to.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Rubbish. What exists between you and me is substantial and physical not imaginary. Between you and me are a huge number of atoms all configured in various ways and combined with energy. These are what separate us not "distance". Distance is a conceptual term we use to describe reality. Reality is reality.

Distance does not exist. The atoms that sepa ...[text shortened]... . It's you that's being woolly here not me. Tell me what distence is NOT what it isn't

ei... I must intervene on this one.

Between you and me are a huge number of atoms all configured in various ways and combined with energy. These are what separate us not "distance".
This is so wrong... What you said makes no sense.

Distance does not exist. The atoms that separate us do exist. Distance describes those atoms and thus it is not the thing it describes. Once again you cannot place distance (like time or dimensions) in the physical world as substantial . You also cannot give distance a catagory in which it belongs .
I don't know where you got that ideia, but it goes against all we see. Distance is intrinsic in reality. It's not the atoms that separate us that say what's distance. What we use to define distance is the time a light beam takes to get to you. No atoms inbetween are needed.
We can define the whole reality with: Distance, time and energy. The relations between them are called the laws of physics.

Originally posted by knightmeister
1. if there were no atoms between you and me, would we no longer be separated? whitey

KM- I don't know what happens when all physical reality is removed. Neither do you I guess. Would there be a vaccuum between us , who knows . Can a vaccuum really exist. I imagine it would be like what happens if you take a scoop of water out of a bath tub- the r le jump to thinking that these things actually are in the world that I object to.

argh.. you have such a twisted vision of reality...
with logic it's different then with distance.... they're not in the same level.

Distance is clearly part of the reality. As is energy. Both are the are concepts we have, but they're characteristics of reality.

Another question that's not possible to answer. There is certainly energy keeping them apart , it doesn't have to be matter. I'm sure "distance" isn't keeping them apart
no one said distance was keeping them apart. It was said there was a distance between them. Yet, between atoms there's nothing. Pure vacuum. We can model some kind of field to explain the interactions between them, but this field is only conceptual, a model to explain and make prediction of the atoms behavior.

Distance is not a "thing" that exists in the real world. It's the real world itself. Hmm... I guess you can put logic here too, with some good will..
There's the reality, and the manifestations of reality (objects) that follow the laws of reality. You can add the world of concepts too, but I don't need it.

Originally posted by serigado
argh.. you have such a twisted vision of reality...
with logic it's different then with distance.... they're not in the same level.

Distance is clearly part of the reality. As is energy. Both are the are concepts we have, but they're characteristics of reality.

[b]Another question that's not possible to answer. There is certainly energy keeping them ...[text shortened]... the laws of reality. You can add the world of concepts too, but I don't need it.

Distance is clearly part of the reality. As is energy.----serigado--

Doh!!! Energy is reality. Is not all matter a form of energy or have I got my physics wrong?

To compare distance with energy is like comparing apples and oranges.

You think by linking distance (concept) with something that clearly exists like energy you make "distance" more substantial.

Don't you guys get it yet. If you cannot say what something is made of you have to be very skeptical about whether it exists. Existence is substantial , it can be touched, measured , seen , observed , etc etc.

Originally posted by serigado
argh.. you have such a twisted vision of reality...
with logic it's different then with distance.... they're not in the same level.

Distance is clearly part of the reality. As is energy. Both are the are concepts we have, but they're characteristics of reality.

[b]Another question that's not possible to answer. There is certainly energy keeping them ...[text shortened]... the laws of reality. You can add the world of concepts too, but I don't need it.

Yet, between atoms there's nothing. Pure vacuum. -serigado---


This is just conjecture and nothing more. There are many scientists who question whether a "pure" vaccuum can actually exist at all. Experiments have been done to heat up "pure" vaccuums and guess what , there's a whole lot more in vaccuums than you might think.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Distance is clearly part of the reality. As is energy.----serigado--

Doh!!! Energy is reality. Is not all matter a form of energy or have I got my physics wrong?

To compare distance with energy is like comparing apples and oranges.

You think by linking distance (concept) with something that clearly exists like energy you make "distance" more t exists. Existence is substantial , it can be touched, measured , seen , observed , etc etc.

You'll say ANYTHING in an attempt to 'win a point.'

KM: Don't you guys get it yet. If you cannot say what something is made of you have to be very skeptical about whether it exists.

So what is God made of?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You'll say ANYTHING in an attempt to 'win a point.'

KM: Don't you guys get it yet. If you cannot say what something is made of you have to be very skeptical about whether it exists.

So what is God made of?

God is "made of" pure Spirit , pure holiness. The Bible describes God as a Holy Fire or furnace. In a sense God cannot be broken down into constituent parts or substance because God just is. He is eternal , holy , and the essence behind all creation.

So the Holy Spirit is God's nature or essence here on earth , released to us via Jesus's death. Since you do not seem to subscribe to this idea (which makes a farce out of Jesus's death) nor believe in Christ's literal ressurection I find it interesting that you then think you can preach your fake rolex Jesus to others.

He's a magnificent copy with many of the fine details of the original , but I can spot the fake.

So I've answered your question how about mine?

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit ? (Think about the REAL reason you won't answer)

Now I know you see any form of debate as egotistical behaviour (which let's face it is very very convenient for you if you wish to avoid a challenge to your position) but for me debate is a way of finding truth and exploring it. You do not seem to want to explore anything much preferring instead to not throw you hat into the ring and see if it stands.

But I guess what we'll get is more repetition. The same dogma . Challenge ToO = ego , deceipt . It's a mantra you repeat well. It makes you just as much as a fundie as GW because you can't help but stick rigidly to it. Here you are even subtly knocking the idea that God even exists! What would jesus make of that?

Oh----and before you say it ... I know..."the truth will set me free" and " I have eyes but cannot see" and "I'm such a child" blah blah zzzzzzzzzzz. 😴

Originally posted by knightmeister
God is "made of" pure Spirit , pure holiness. The Bible describes God as a Holy Fire or furnace. In a sense God cannot be broken down into constituent parts or substance because God just is. He is eternal , holy , and the essence behind all creation.

So the Holy Spirit is God's nature or essence here on earth , released to us via Jesus's death. Sinc ...[text shortened]... eyes but cannot see" and "I'm such a child" blah blah zzzzzzzzzzz. 😴

You could just as well as said, "I don't know", because you don't know. Of course, I don't expect that you'd be willing to admit it. It'd mean that you'd have to back pedal from your previous assertion. You have too much pride for that.

It's remarkable how often you just make up whatever seems to address the matter at hand, even if it completely flies in the face of what you've said before. Even if it completely flies in the face of logic and reason. Even if it completely flies in the face of truth.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You could just as well as said, "I don't know", because you don't know. Of course, I don't expect that you'd be willing to admit it. It'd mean that you'd have to back pedal from your previous assertion. You have too much pride for that.

It's remarkable how often you just make up whatever seems to address the matter at hand, even if it completely flie ...[text shortened]... ies in the face of logic and reason. Even if it completely flies in the face of truth.

Of course I don't know exactly the nature of God because it's faith , but I know God (if he exists) is as substantial as anything in this universe. The whole point of this line of the debate is to figure out what can be said to exist in actuality and it's clear to me that no-one really believes that logic or distance or time are actually made of anything. It's an existential point regarding what exists and what doesn't .

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You could just as well as said, "I don't know", because you don't know. Of course, I don't expect that you'd be willing to admit it. It'd mean that you'd have to back pedal from your previous assertion. You have too much pride for that.

It's remarkable how often you just make up whatever seems to address the matter at hand, even if it completely flie ...[text shortened]... ies in the face of logic and reason. Even if it completely flies in the face of truth.

It's remarkable how often you just make up whatever seems to address the matter at hand, even if it completely flies in the face of what you've said before. Even if it completely flies in the face of logic and reason. Even if it completely flies in the face of truth.-----toO---------


I thought you said God is truth and yet here you are arguing against his existence. You miss the point of the whole line of reasoning. The moment someone gives me a good reason for assuming the time/distance/ logic ACTUALLY exist I'll back off. However no-one has . I don't see how anything I've said flies in the face of anything.It's a philosophical point and I don't expect you to get it because your thinking is so abstract and woolly. You can't imagine having to tie yourself down to something. You fit Jesus into your theology instead of fitting yourself into his.

Distance is a concept not a force or a thing or an energy , just a concept .Think about what happens when you break reality down to it's raw essence. People think I am saying that there is no distance between the eiffel tower and new york , which I am not . I am saying that what separates them is atoms and energy.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's remarkable how often you just make up whatever seems to address the matter at hand, even if it completely flies in the face of what you've said before. Even if it completely flies in the face of logic and reason. Even if it completely flies in the face of truth.-----toO---------


I thought you said God is truth and yet here you are arguing aga d new york , which I am not . I am saying that what separates them is atoms and energy.

This is really quite interesting.

KM: Don't you guys get it yet. If you cannot say what something is made of you have to be very skeptical about whether it exists.
Here you've made an assertion that I found curious to have come from you. To be true, you'd have to know what God is made of or be "very skeptical about whether [God] exists."

From what you've said in the past, I've gathered that you have no such skepticism, so I asked the question:
ToO: So what is God made of?

You gave an insubstantial answer:
KM: God is "made of" pure Spirit , pure holiness.

I pointed this out to you:
ToO: You could just as well as said, "I don't know", because you don't know.

You conceded that you don't know what God is made of:
KM: Of course I don't know exactly the nature of God because it's faith...

And you go on to affirm a belief that contradicts your original assertion in light of your concession that you don't know what God is made of:
KM: ...but I know God (if he exists) is as substantial as anything in this universe.

I also made the following assertion:
ToO: It's remarkable how often you just make up whatever seems to address the matter at hand, even if it completely flies in the face of what you've said before. Even if it completely flies in the face of logic and reason. Even if it completely flies in the face of truth.

You countered this assertion with the following:
KM: I thought you said God is truth and yet here you are arguing against his existence.
So here I've only argued against your assertion, but in your mind it gets twisted into my arguing against the existence of God.

Here you've not only contradicted your assertion, but substantiated mine. It's as if your beliefs change with context, which contibutes greatly to the perception that you're illogical. Fascinating. But if you remain true to form, you'll find a way to rationalize this all away.

I only skimmed the discussion about time/distance/logic, but I'm thinking that perhaps what you've yet to understand is that "what exists" are relationships. Distance describes a relationship between any two points in space. Similarly time and logic are also about relationships.

Now before you respond, you might want to keep in mind that you've stated many times that you have a relationship with God/Jesus that you believe exists. Please spare us a rerun of the above.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is really quite interesting.

[b]KM: Don't you guys get it yet. If you cannot say what something is made of you have to be very skeptical about whether it exists.
Here you've made an assertion that I found curious to have come from you. To be true, you'd have to know what God is made of or be "very skeptical about whether [God] exists."

...[text shortened]... esus that you believe exists. Please spare us a rerun of the above.[/b]

I think the analogy regarding God is a very different one because the main thrust of this whole debate has been concerning the catagories of a) concepts and b) things that exist in the physical world. If you look back at my posts you will see that I have clearly mentioned the spiritual dimension but excluded it as a catagory for the purposes of this debate (because it is a controversial catagory). I have indulged you with an answer because I wanted to see what you are up to.

I have mainly restricted my arguments to two catagories and argued from the perspective of an atheist position. I did think that someone might ask me what God was made of but I didn't think too much about it especially since faith in God for me doesn't rest on whether he scientifically can be shown to exist. For the likes of whitey I would have thought that scientific proof that time exists would be important.

I am skeptical myself about God's existence but nevertheless have faith he is there. Skepticism is for me the beginnings of faith.

You are trying very hard to create a storm in a tea cup here over nothing when the most interesting question here is whether you believe God exists because if he doesn't then it's hard to see how the values of truth , love , compassion will be victorious in this world. Remember the Jesus you talk about so much believed in the ultimate victory of love which would come about via the power of God at the end of time. No God , no victory.

So do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think the analogy regarding God is a very different one because the main thrust of this whole debate has been concerning the catagories of a) concepts and b) things that exist in the physical world. If you look back at my posts you will see that I have clearly mentioned the spiritual dimension but excluded it as a catagory for the purposes of this d r of God at the end of time. No God , no victory.

So do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

How much of my post did you actually read? It's evident that you comprehended very little.

It's quite fascinating how you twist things around in your mind. You've finally convinced me that you are not only unaware of this fact, you are also in a state of denial. Either that or you're remarkably dense. Either way there's likely no way of getting through to you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How much of my post did you actually read? It's evident that you comprehended very little.

It's quite fascinating how you twist things around in your mind. You've finally convinced me that you are not only unaware of this fact, you are also in a state of denial. Either that or you're remarkably dense. Either way there's likely no way of getting through to you.

The overall point I was trying to make is that God is not really a "something" so it's not really a question of whether "it" exists because he can be known personally. In retrospect I should not have taken your bait and tried to describe what God is made of because it's not really a feature regarding my faith in God.

Those who I was debating with didn't seem to acknowledge that what they had was a "faith" in logic. Some even suggested it was an immutable independent thing (????) .

Looking back I should have just pointed out that God is not a "something" but a "someone" but as I said I thought I would indulge you by giving a straight answer to a straight question (must have looked wierd to you?)

It's basic pomposity that leads you to question the consistency of my beliefs when what I believe is clearly and publicly laid out in mainstream Christianity. I may be many things but one thing I will do is try and answer a question fairly and straightly , which is something you'll never do. It may be messy and at times incoherent but at least it's honest , real and out there. So criticise away from behind your ivory tower of evasiveness if you like , it makes no difference to me.
If your true beliefs are too brittle for you to expose them to debate then keep them to yourself. You talk as if you have something very important to share but then when asked you clam up and hide behind your cards. (the truth will make you free - blah blah blah) Honestly , don't you realise that coming out with your repetitive mantras is like listening to supermarket music to me? It means zilch without further exploration.

I'm clear and definite about what I believe whereas you are evasive and woolly , choosing to see any challenge as "deceipt" or "lies" of the ego. It's defence mechanism that prevents you from exploring anything beyond your rigid position.

Since you have never clearly laid out a definite position on Jesus or God and what you do and don't believe then it's hard to see what exactly it is you are trying to get through to me. Unless you can answer a basic question and prove that you are a man of honour then it's difficult to respect anything you say.

So let's try again- Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's basic pomposity that leads you to question the consistency of my beliefs when what I believe is clearly and publicly laid out in mainstream Christianity. I may be many things but one thing I will do is try and answer a question fairly and straightly , which is something you'll never do. It may be messy and at times incoherent but at least it's ho ...[text shortened]... ect anything you say.

So let's try again- Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

Listen. What I'm trying to get through to you is this. Your posts are often filled with so many flawed assertions, inconsistencies, half-truths, outright lies, etc. that I don't know where to begin. Should I try to refute them all? Refute some? Even when I attempt to refute some, you seem unable to grasp what is being said. It's as if you're incapable of having a discussion based on logic and reason.

So I thought I'd give it one last shot here. Unfortunately it was to no avail.

I understand that there are certain questions that you'd like answered, but I see little point unless you can get past this. I'm sure you'll find plenty of others who you can continue to suck into these rambling incoherent discussions. I understand that your pride takes a hit when I point this stuff out to you, but you really need to take a hard look.