Lets talk about the big bang.

Zero is a concept of a symbol for nothing, within a context, so we can have zero marmalade. The concept itself is something but not the subject of the concept, which, in context, means that there is nothing. Like "how much marmalade is in that cupboard?"

Nothing or zero can both answer such a question. You're trying to make differences where none exist. You're also somewhat confused by "absence of everything" and "absence of anything". You need to explore the application of context to these abstract concepts.

Mathematicians have defined zero as a number and that's all very well for their shallow way of thinking. It makes things easier for them to understand, that's all.

A concept of a symbol is more than nothing, not sure why you are having a difficult time with this. A transcendental spiritual Being who is not part of the material world; therefore, space, time, and energy we see could be seen coming from one such as that. From a transcendent one would not be breaking any laws or conflicts of logic. We can not see anything that owes all or part of its being to the universe itself causing the universe itself to come into being.

I think the question is about dualism. Superficially I accept dualism because it is a good vehicle to discuss the differences between materialism and perhaps things that emanate from the mind, which you would call spirituality. On an absolute basis though, I think you think that those distinctions are real, whereas logically they cannot be real if the mind interacts with the material world. Therefore there's a difference between us, on quite a fundamental level, regarding the way we perceive the things we're trying to discuss.

Dualism, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting there is a material world and a distinct other world immaterial as well?

No I'm not. I think that's what you believe, perhaps?

I studied philosophy and developed my own ideas, which are epistemologically dualistic but not ontologically so.

That means in practice that there is the appearance of distinctly different material and immaterial worlds without them being actually separate.

Oh by the way, thankyou very much for that question. I moved away from developing those ideas many years ago and I now find that I can express them better than I could previously.

I believe in God, He isn't divided, He is more than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one being three persons. He is also all of His attributes love, grace, goodness, righteousness, mercy, and so on in perfect harmony at all times in all ways. What you think is the prime reality sounds a little convoluted.

Yes, I do understand what you mean but of course, in my opinion, God is an invented concept and I know that my abstract ideas exist only as ideas or as ideals. You haven't managed to work that out. In turn, you would say that I haven't managed to work out that God is real and not an invention.

Or you might think I ought to have faith but I don't have faith in the ideas of other people. I have faith in what seems real to me. God doesn't need to be real. It's the concept itself, how we react to it and how it's used to alter our way of thinking that's powerful.

So you are finding fault in my concept of God, because of your concept of God?

Tell me something. Are you finding fault with my concept of God, because of your concept of God?

You're still too defensive and combative to have a good discussion with, even though I can tell that the potential's there.

I'm not sure where you got your concept of God, what text did you go to for it? Was it something you just like the sound of or do you have some cause or reason? I'm not sure what you think I'm doing that is defensive or combative, but feel free to enlighten me.

Well, I'm extremely highly intelligent and I can also think for myself. I don't think there's anyone who can out-think me on these subjects because also I've had very many years to think over these things and I started at a very early age indeed. About 7 years old, probably.

The above is just an account of observation. I'm the sort of person that people get their ideas from rather than me looking for ideas in various texts. Again, this is an observation based on probabilities as much as anything.

You have a strong belief in God and I get the idea that you are slightly defensive because you don't know what to make of me. We could be friends I think, but you seem to have a compulsion to try to assert your ideas whereas I only relate my ideas if I think they're in context in a conversation. My ideas should speak for themselves to people who are open to them and are capable of understanding them.

I'm slowly starting to form an image of you as a man in his 40s, quite possibly, who is a thinker and who forms ideas carefully and probably rather slowly but who is basically sincere.

It's easy to get defensive in these forums and clubs and things. You hardly ever know who you're speaking to. I tend to slowly form impressions of people and I take my time about it. Some others are too quick and they also have less experience to draw on so they can get things wrong.

If I'm right, I may be 25 or 30 years older than you. Then again, you could be younger or older than that. It was just a guess.

Pushing 68 in a few months.

Oh ok.

"If I'm right, I may be 25 or 30 years older than you" - that would make you about 95 to 100? 😉

I think the "Oh Ok" Stephen is Optimissed over estimation of TM's age.... It caught him by surprise....

I had a bell curve in my mind, with the most likely being about 42 or 44. I think Truthmuse's lack of confidence made me think that.

As though he's carefully and slightly hesitantly trying to work things out. In particular, the reference to a text, as in "which text?"

I'm having a conversation in another club, which is going like this:

Optimissed 
2 days ago #12
Thanks for explaining. I genuinely didn't know what you were talking about. However, it isn't a deductive argument. No truly important arguments are deductive.

I certainly don't think belief in God is irrational. I think it's perfectly rational but incorrect. It can be shown that mankind has many motives for belief in God ... so much so that it is absolutely certain that the idea of God is invented. That certainty isn't due to any deductive argument.

Lincoy3304 
1 day ago #13
 I said it is a mistake in induction, not deduction

Optimissed 
20 hrs ago #14
Oh, it isn't a mistake in induction. There's overwhelming evidence to show that mankind often has a compulsion to believe in God. Also it's a form of rhetorical trap that people who may not be all that bright get caught up in. The idea that once you've thought something, it may or even must exist.

Optimissed 
20 hrs ago #15
(A bit like that attempt trying to use the idea of possible worlds .... a bit on the silly side.)

Lincoy3304 
3 hrs ago #16
The problem in induction that you made said that because mankind wants to invent Gods, it’s improbable that God exists. That would be the mistake in induction

Optimissed #17
No it's perfectly correct.

The question is the origination of the God concept ... in particular the idea that the god-concept refers to something real. The entire thing is circular and simply having that idea seems to provide it with legitimacy, because you can use the content of the idea as a source for itself. It's a false legitimacy though, which comes from wishful thinking and different forms of confirmation bias. You try to portray it as a mistake in induction because you believe in God's existence and you forget that induction isn't deduction.

The inductive technique is perfectly good here though, because of the lack of evidence for the existence of God. I'm talking about empirical evidence and not about evidence based in personal faith, revelation or witnessing, which isn't evidence for God. That sort of thing is only evidence for the existence of belief in God.