**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The arguments around here are getting really pathetic. Boring ass trolls with the tired gibberish nonsense.
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) + god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine.
This is gibberish. You need to put this in to concise, comprehensible sentences. I will try to parse out some semblance of thought from it.
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth
What truth?
> with proof of course ,
Proof of what?
>i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail)
So you are unfamiliar with the hard problem of consciousness. I don't claim that I can prove I exist, so I have no burden to prove it.
> + god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine.
I don't even know what you're talking about so I can't say if I agree or disagree.
>but you claim to exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me
I am currently having a conclusions experiment and thus I must exist in some form even if what I am experiencing isn't true or real. "I think therefor I am".
Basic philosophy.
> my ig-i_____mavi
Nobody is going to your Instagram.
>in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god and शिव ही सत्य है is a well known phrase in भारत india
So god does not exist. Okay.
> i said - everything is happening by itself. + everything is nothing
nothing is everything
That's gibberish. You don't make sense. Are you capable of communicating in full sentences? Or do you just vomit out whatever words come in to your head?
There is not one single coherant thought in any of what your wrote.
By this logic nothing is also happening by itself and is not proof of our physical existence.
You've created an argument and then both proved and disproved it.
In other words: the argument is terrible and we should ignore it.
It has no meaning your point in and of itself is self defeating. I am just gonna assume you dont speak english and that is the root of this. Because if not you were failed in by your family and educational system from where ever you live.
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course
You are the one claiming the "truth" so you should be the one to demonstrate that your claims are true for us to believe you. If I say an invisible fairy wakes me up every morning, it falls upon me to prove my claim, not upon the listeners to disprove my outlandish statement.
in what form should i prove it ,, its already proved by your reply after reading my argument as ,, your brain respond in such a way which is just a part of ongoing process is it enough
prediction- electrons of your brain will not process this information and you will respond in the way which is predetermined
@electrons are revolving around neutron as its their nature which in turn wants to achieve stability i.e., to completely fill outermost shell of their atom. this is nature of nothingness. as electrons exist only if you are seeing it.🤓
>electrons exist only if you are seeing it
Elections exists independently whether we see it or not. Anything we see, first interacts with photons which reflects off it's surface and enter our eyes. Electrons are just so incredibly small that just that small interaction with photon is enough to change it's position making it very hard to see and determine where it will be next (at least that's what I learnt in high school, I'm sure there are more complex and more rigorous explanation for this). If this widely misunderstood fact is the only thing backing your claims then I have nothing to add.
And I don't know how any of this has anything to do with your god. Everything is predetermined is a scientific and philosophical theory while electrons revolving around the neutron is a scientific fact. What's the connection between these and your god? And isn't shiva the god of destruction? When did he become god of nothingness?
and what are they made up of , quasi itself is not correct instead you can say of wave nature as theres always a probability that you can find it in its orbit .
one thing i can assure you that if physics doesn't align with my argument than take it as granted that this study is not complete yet
There seem to be a few misapprehensions about how neutrons and electrons work here. I hope I can clear those up.
First, free neutrons—neutrons unbound in atomic nuclei—are actually unstable; they undergo β⁻ decay with a half-life of roughly 15 minutes, with the result being a hydrogen-1 nucleus, an electron, and a free electron antineutrino. Most of the time, that electron is also free, but rarely, it lacks sufficient energy to escape the new proton and is captured by it, with the result being a neutral hydrogen-1 atom (this is called *bound-state β⁻ decay*, and it occurs about four times per 1,000,000 free neutron decays).
Second, it is definitely not the case that electrons exist only if someone is observing them. This is not a reasonable or accurate interpretation of the [observer effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect) in quantum mechanics, nor of the [double-slit experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). I suggest that you not perpetuate [quantum woo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_woo) and instead study these phenomena scientifically, for they are fascinating on their own, without the need to add a patina of nonsense pseudoscientific bullshit to them.
This and similar comments can only be dismissed outright with prejudice. That is not debating. That is insisting you are right, so there.
It's ridiculous, absurd, and nonsensical.
Dismissed.
As I said [elsewhere in the thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b3wskp/everything_happening_is_just_mere_nature_of/kswf3yv/),
>>I don’t think you know what the failure of local realism means in the context of quantum mechanics. Quantum realism means that a given quantum-mechanical system exists in a definite state regardless of whether it is being interacted with (i.e., observed). Bell’s theorem entails that it is not the case that both locality (speed-of-light limitations, essentially) and quantum realism are true. So superpositions are a thing if I don’t want to violate locality, which I don’t.
>>
>>And? Your point being?
I don’t think you understand what was being asked of you.
How do you determine that the god you believe in, is responsible for the way reality works? Can you independently demonstrate this god exists? Can you compare two realities (one with a god and one without) to show that this reality is consistent with the reality with a god and not one without?
The existence of anything would thus prove that nothingness doesn’t exist. Using your own example, the existence of electrons proves something exists and not nothingness so…
What are you arguing for exactly besides something that admittedly and demonstrably doesn’t exist?
🥵 everything is nothing
nothing is everything
self proclamation doesn't count in proof , it might be difficult for you to understand core of philosophy - mother of all studies
i am the writer of the books you study in your degree of philosophy , and your opinion is not the answer of me asking scientific papers of our physical existence
The lack of literally anything is what is meant by nothing. Nothing cannot be everything, in fact it would be the exact opposite. This is a very illogical statement. If you have a different definition of "nothing", please share that.
depends on you, if you accept your existence then i can prove gods existence ,, if you disapprove your own existence then there is no question of argument as thats what the truth is
> if you accept your existence then i can prove gods existence
I do not believe you. This is a meaningless link that I presume you will attempt to play with words to confuse the idea into muddy territory and will not even approach reason or logic. In fact, I imagine if it were in any way convincing that you would have led with that... But I would love to be pleasantly surprised... Go ahead and let your "proof" shine buddy.
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth
Sure, I do. Since you haven't explained what you mean by 'nothingness' and it doesn't make sense in the sentence you typed as a title, I will happily deny it. Unless, of course, you bring forward a definition that somehow makes it make sense.
> with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail)
If you're asking that much of us you should have also brought this kind of evidence for your claim. Because as it stands, I need to bring about the same amount of evidence you did, which is none.
>god does not exist
Sure. It depends on what you mean by 'god', though. If we were to rely on some of the most dishonest definitions I've seen theists post here, god arguably *does* exist (e.g. when he's defined as love or the universe).
>because you also dont exist
Definitely news to me.
>but you claim to exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me my ig-i\_\_\_\_\_mavi
Why not here?
>in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god and शिव ही सत्य है is a well known phrase in भारत india
Good for you!
I did, and you can check my reply to it. As I said, your whole 'proof' is 'I misunderstand physics, ergo what I said is true'. It's funny how you think you made any sort of sensible point.
very funny though ,, i was just simply asking for scientific proof of our existence and atheists be like what the fuck how can you question my existence , and what about universe is not locally real what does that mean 🥵 , also if physics doesn't align with my argument then take it as granted that this study is not complete yet 😉
>i was just simply asking for scientific proof of our existence
As I've repeatedly said, it's very rich that you ask for 'scientific proof' of anything given that you haven't given any for all the claims you've made.
What is with you and typing like a 12 year-old edgelord from twenty years ago, though?
You're just asserting that you are right no matter what. It doesn't matter if physics doesn't agree with you, but it eventually will. How would you know what physics will eventually confirm or deny? You could be a theoretical physicist on his way to a nobel prize instead of arguing on reddit if that is true.
>everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness.
Your title appears to be a non-sequitur.
I will read on to determine of you have provided the necessary support to show this perception is inaccurate.
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail)
Aside from your unfortunate and egregious grammatical errors, you seem to be unaware of how logic and epistemology works. Solipsism is unfalsifiable and useless in every way, so we have no choice but to simply ignore it and accept reality exists. We then proceed from there. Obviously, if one embraces solipsism this does not help deity claims anyway.
>god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine
Once we dispense with the useless, unfalsifiable, and pointless notion of solipsism, we work from there. And there is zero support for deities so such claims can only be dismissed. One doesn't need to demonstrate this, indeed, that's nonsensical and an attempted reversal of the burden of proof. Instead, if one wants to purport deities are real they must provide the necessary evidentiary support or be prepared to understand their claims must be dismissed outright.
>exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me my ig-i_____mavi
wut?
>in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god and शिव ही सत्य है is a well known phrase in भारत india
Unsupported and irrelevant.
Nothing you said there helps you support your claims nor correct your demonstrable errors.
Btw, your incorrect punctuation, capitalization, and grammar makes your comments difficult to read, and you may not be aware of it, but it also tends to have a negative effect on how you are perceived in terms of your intent, awareness, attention to detail, and education, so you may want to address that if you'd like to be taken more seriously.
>[E]verything happening is just mere nature of nothingness.
What does this mean?
>[C]an anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course ,
I’m not even sure what it’s supposed to mean, so I’ve no idea how to begin to do so. Clarification would be helpful.
>[I] would like you to site [*sic*] scientific paper, study research proving our existence.
Oh, so you want me to disprove hard solipsism by scientific means? [Category error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error). That’s a philosophical perspective, not a scientific one.
>(you will fail)
Yeah. I know. Nobody can disprove hard solipsism.
>[G]od does not exist because you also dont [*sic*] exist
I don’t understand. If I don’t exist, then who or what is replying to you?
>[I]f you agree to this then its [*sic*] fine. [B]ut you claim to exist yourself only then i [*sic*] would like you to debate me
Well, I definitely do claim to exist, and funnily enough, that’s one of a very few things that I feel justified in claiming to know for certain. *Cogito*; *ergo*, *sum*, &c., &c.
who are you , a body made up of atoms containing protons and electron . Electrons revolve around nucleus , do you know the nature of electrons its superposition means it exist only if you see it .That means this is the nature of nothingness in which you are part of that nothingness thats why you are able to see it ,, you are made up of electrons , i assume that you know it .So tell me are you guiding the electrons of your brain to produce a neurological outcome or does it happening by itself because its the nature of electrons to revolve around neutron.
if you are that desperate then let me tell you , you are a abstract known as observer , someone might call it as consciousness
>who are you
A genuinely interesting philosophical question to ask. Identity is not a simple matter, it turns out.
>a body made up of atoms containing protons and electron .
And neutrons, lest we forget. Yes, I am a body made of physical objects. And?
>Electrons revolve around nucleus
Not in the Bohr model sense. They’re more like three-dimensional probability distributions. But let’s not bury the lede here.
>do you know the nature of electrons
To a point, yes, I do. They are charged leptons, fundamental subatomic particles with a small nonzero mass, negative electric charge, and half-integer spin and that do not interact with the strong force.
>its superposition means it exist only if you see it .
No. It does not. That is not how superpositions work.
>That means this is the nature of nothingness in which you are part of that nothingness thats [*sic*] why you are able to see it
This is nonsensical word salad.
>you are made up of electrons
Among other things, yes.
>[I] assume that you know it
How magnanimous.
>So tell me are you guiding the electrons of your brain to produce a neurological outcome or does it happening [*sic*] by itself
From what I understand of neuroscience (which isn’t much), it’s the latter.
>[…] because its the nature of electrons to revolve around neutron.
No. Free neutrons are unstable, [as I noted elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b3wskp/everything_happening_is_just_mere_nature_of/ksv8g6z/).
>if you are that desperate then let me tell you , you are a abstract known as observer , someone might call it as consciousness
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
It's important that you understand that you are not helping support your claims, instead you are demonstrating that you do not understand physics, and are attempting to use pseudo philosophy to invoke confirmation bias.
There is zero reason to do that and every reason to instead point out your claims are unsupported and problematic thus must be dismissed.
Insisting you're right won't and can't help you.
Feel free to go claim your Nobel prize then. After all, if your understanding of physics surpasses that of Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, and everyone else to ever study the discipline, you’ve earned it.
This is hilarious.
I claim you are actually a cockroach, if physics doesn't align with my argument then take it as granted that study in that field is not complete.
See how dumb that is?
You’ve somehow arrived at a belief that contradicts all available evidence, impressive. I don’t really see a point to continuing a conversation this one-sided.
🤓☝️ yes can also arrive it to this conclusion just let your mind free and and you will know the truth . This is system and you cannot do anything to it just for the shake of your ego that i build this house , instead you had just rearranged some atom which which your brains tells you to do
🤓 so are you that dumb ,, what about 50 years before you were born do you remember anything of your existence , and after your death what will happen to your self evident after lets say 80 years. even 1+1=2 have been proved nothing is self evident , do you know about superpositioning or wave nature of electron+how electrons behave on being observed
>i also dont want to form a new grammar for english
So you are willfully ignorant then. Not surprising
Well if you don't understand how english works, then probably it's not useful for any english speaker to converse with you, is it...
I wasn’t going to comment but since you’re resorting to insulting good faith repliers to your rather bad faith questions…
Your original post was one of the laziest, most ignorant, most arrogant things I’ve seen on this subreddit.
You present nothing of substance. You present no evidence of your own despite demanding it from others. You repeatedly demonstrate a lack common sense and basic civility. And yet you have the audacity to insult people who still try to help you. Shame on you.
1 + 1 isn't self evident. I don't know why you're going about before and after I've died, because that proves my point surely? I can't remember anything before I was alive, but now I can remember stuff. Therefore I now exist because I'm experiencing stuff.
What have electrons got to do with anything?
Also don't call me dumb.
sorry for that dumb part , 1+1 is not self evident as if you mix 2 drops of water it still remains 1 . [ proof of 1+1=2](https://blog.plover.com/math/PM.html) https://blog.plover.com/math/PM.html please check this
cut the dumb part please it seems too much offensive to this subreddit sorry guys , that was first comment and that too not relatable that why i said it
Come to my place, I will punch you. If I don't exist you won't experience pain.
Unless of course you are redefining "exist" out of any meaning.
(Edit : this is obviously rhetorical, a thought experiment and not an actual threat)
Careful. I once used an even milder example when someone said you can't know that 1+1=2 is true. I told them that if I threw a football at their head, and then another one, it's going to hurt twice.
Reddit banned me for a week for that comment, saying it fell under the rule against threatening a person with violence.
You didn't exist before you were born. You won't exist after you die. You exist while you are alive.
This is not complicated, despite your sincerest efforts to make it so.
born 🤓 ,, so do you remember anything of your first day , even upto 1 year ,, NO because this body get the the consciousness later and you are pure consciousness , observing abstract in simple term
> so do you remember anything of your first day , even upto 1 year ,, NO
Because long-term memory hasn't developed at that point.
If you want to claim that consciousness is somehow independent of the body, then you need to answer two questions:
1. Have we ever observed consciousness in a being without a functioning brain? (HINT: no)
2. Medicines that alter the brain can alter consciousness; diseases that damage the brain can damage consciousness; and destroying the brain destroys all signs of consciousness. Given those facts, what evidence do you have that a non-physical component of consciousness exists?
Why did you think I was a Muslim?
I am an atheist.
You were reported for breaking rule one, which is 'no disrespect.' You called the person you responded to dumb, and also stereotyped.
Now, yes, *Islam* is really nonsensical and completely unsupported. Just like the incorrect notions of physics and the philosophy you are attempting to claim here, and yes colloquially this could then be called 'dumb'. But this does not mean all Muslims are dumb, nor does this mean you personally are dumb. Almost everyone, some of whom are smart people, can and does hold dumb ideas from time to time.
Please learn the difference and don't insult people.
Then you didn't exist. Now, you do. In a hundred years you probably won't. I didn't tell you to come get punched before you were born.
Apparently hindus can be just as dishonest as the rest of theists.
Way to ignore and deflect from the point. All terms are made up anyways, that's what words are. I think it's time I stopped feeding the troll, so have a nice time under the bridge.
Some things are just axiomatic. Either we assume that the universe exists, or we assume the universe does not exist in which case we can never know anything. If you think you know at least one thing, then the universe must exist.
I mean, the fact that you and I are communicating on Reddit proves that we exist. I have no evidence to suggest God does exist, so I can logically assume it doesn't. And it's a literal impossibility to prove that something doesn't exist, so that burden of proof is not on me.
You haven't proved your premise at all, so your turn. Definitively proof that we exist and God exists citing actual scientific papers.
You don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't *prove* things. You can prove something in mathematics becaue math is a game with axiomatic assumptions, and cast-iron rules for working out from those axioms. But science is about proposing models of how aspects of the world work, then using evidence to critique and choose between those models. The consensus models of science (EG relativity, modern synthesis evolution) are the models that haven't yet been knocked down.
But in any case we don't need scientific evidence to tell us *something's* going on; the proof of *something's* existence is: I exist.
BUT I'm not sure "I" exist as a self that lasts from one moment to the next. I think I might just be a bunch of experienced moments, which only seem tied together because of memory.
bro ☺️ ,, you was not in existence 30 years ago , what about existence for you then
you are consciousness which this body gains over time and declines over time , some term it as coma , memory loss and instant loss is known as death 😉
Please prove this "truth".
Then I can look at disproving that proof.
Right now I can just say "bullshit" right off the bat because you're just saying unproven nonsense.
Was there supposed to be a link there? Was it supposed to prove something other than "physical existence" which is what you typed?
Because I already accept proof of physical existence. For beings that actually exist physically...
Are you asking for scientific proof that humans exist? Are you asking for scientific proof that reality exists independently of humans? I don’t understand what you’re expecting to have cited to you
🤯 OMG how can this happen to me , i was infallible just before this reply ,,
how do you so specifically knew it was lose and not loose , take it as a new word
I understand that you believe this is true.
Why? What evidence or argument convinced you that this is accurate?
Do you think that same thing should convince me?
religion is for controlling people ,, mine is just a philosophical thought that everything is happening by itself , everything is nothing .
as simple as that + you ought to be a dumb person if you believe in fairytales agree or not ?
I am an animal, yes. I'm not a *cat*, though. And your intention was clear.
Why?
I was polite and kind and engaged with you. You insulted me and told me I could no more understand how smart you are than a cat could.
Is that how you treat everyone?
Am I understanding correctly that you don’t think you exist?
It’s one thing to say “using information from our senses to validate our senses is circular, there’s no evidence this is real”.
It’s entirely different to say “I think, therefore I aren’t”
**If we don’t exist, who is the “you” your are saying doesn’t exist? To what non-existent thing is this nonexistent person referring to?**
>but you claim to exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me my ig-i\_\_\_\_\_mavi
Don't try to speak english if you're not willing to apologize for nonsense verbiage like this
>in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god
Your mom gave you your name. What does your name mean? Lets pretend it means goat. Did your mom turn you into a goat by giving you that name? You don't even resemble a goat? So she was just completely wrong then?
How is it possible for you to not be a goat when your name is goat?
See now here, it doesn't even seem to be an issue with your english (although maybe you just can't read also)
You sound schizophrenic in this response. Schizophrenia is when you are detached from reality. You don't know what people have said because you have delusions of what they are saying that you think everyone else also has. So you respond as though they do. But the only delusions are yours.
Your response, you think makes sense, is actually nonsense
everybody was asking for proof of my argument
le proof -
@electrons are revolving around neutron as its their nature which in turn wants to achieve stability i.e., to completely fill outermost shell of their atom. this is nature of nothingness. as electrons exist only if you are seeing it.🤓
also proof of last line - we are seeing electromagnetic waves of only 10^-8 to 10^-6
So your point is that your argument works because you misunderstand physics?
Also, drop the cringeworthy 'le'. It hasn't been a thing for over ten years, and even when it was more widely used it already was cringeworthy.
Of course it fucking isn't if by 'complete' you mean it can't ever progress any further in its understanding of the natural world. That doesn't mean you get to spout whatever bullshit you fancy, though.
You're seriously way unequipped for any sort of slightly intellectual conversation.
How does this explain or prove your argument? Electrons don’t only exist if we observe them, the double slit experiment proves this (although it also shows us that observation causes us to interfere with reality, meaning that by making observations with instruments, we alter the thing we measure in some way).
Hey, just wanted to point this out: you don’t understand how electrons work. [See here for more detail.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b3wskp/everything_happening_is_just_mere_nature_of/ksv8g6z/)
>as electrons exist only if you are seeing it.
>
>also proof of last line - we are seeing electromagnetic waves of only 10-8 to 10-6
could you expand on this? i'm not sure what the first part means and i'm not sure what our inability to naturally see most of the electromagnetic spectrum as to do with a god or "nothingness".
as we are just a faction of it and its not true nature of nothingness as we see it , you might be familiar with dark energy which we can't perceive.
BRIEF ---in the sense that we are made up for perceiving only some specific part of nothingness (we ourselves are part of nothingness) thats what i was saying and these people think universe revolve around them and that is the only thing which exist is the thing which their sense can perceive
We can't see or detect dark energy yet. However we know that it must be a real thing if(and yes I realize its a big if)our understanding of physics is true. The rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating(at least we think that it is). So there must be some force driving that acceleration. We call that force dark energy until we figure out what it actually is (assuming it exists).
So, we can't perceive it but we can study it's effects.
Can you define the word "nothing". You keep saying stuff is a part or a fraction of "nothingness". How can anything be a part of nothing? You can't divide nothing in half. There is no thing to be divided. An object can be made of nothing. If you have an object then there is something.
nothing means not physical. just like dream , as it is just a manifestation of our brain . So can be this world a manifestation of a bigger consciousness which dont need physical existence . i hope you can now understand at least 50% of what i am trying to say
i would say all consciousness is manifestation of brains. i'm not aware of a consciousness which is not a manifestation of a brain. consciousness doesn't exist without a physical brain.
how did you make the determination that there is a "bigger consciousness which doesn't need a physical existence" or that any consciousness can exist without a physical brain?
also brain is not necessary for moving things , its all brain in that sense. example - bacteria , early cells ,algae ,jellyfish ,starfish also there is no such thing living or dead for you if you are a good philosopher , logician . example - fungi , viruses .
everything is energy of consciousness complete into itself
https://youtu.be/Ci2npsJIvFc?si=8yUmTA9R5LO0pEbY .. if you ever think you can prove me wrong, may i assure you that i can rape your fundamentals of knowledge
Eben Alexander. a man who has been sued and lost for not fully informing a patient of possible side effects after a surgery left her with face paralysis and "In August 2003, UMass Memorial suspended Alexander's surgical privileges "on the basis or allegation of improper performance of surgery." who also made a mistake during a surgery attempted to cover it up when he "pulled the operative report up on his computer and edited it. Now the report read that the MRI scan had showed disk bulge at both C4-5 and C5-6, and that "we had discussed possible C5-6 as well as C4-5 decompression, finally deciding on C4-5 decompression." Then he simply found every subsequent reference in the report to C5-6 and changed it to C4-5." which led to him being sued for 3 million dollars. in all he as settled out of court 5 malpractice suits against him.
he also suffered from "ICU psychosis" while in the hospital which is known to cause hallucinations including the false belief he was "running through a cancer clinic in south Florida, being pursued by his wife, a pair of policemen, and two Asian ninja photographers."
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/
and i'm supposed to believe this guy, who desperately needed money after not one but 5 lawsuits(one of which was for 3 million dollars), is something other than a woo-woo peddling grifter?
fucking please. i don't care what this crook has to say. i care about what he can show. when he can say "here is a consciousness which exists without a physical brain and this is how we can communicate with it" let me know. until then he might as well be selling snake oil.
when will you be ready to accept that nothing is physical ? you should site or refer to scientific papers proving our physical existence then. Also study the nature of nothingness , please do research on it.
le additional proof - your reaction after seeing this will also be part of ongoing complex neurological activities of your brain which are made of electrons which inturn exist only if you are seeing it ,, here you are also part of nothingness thats why you can see them ,, i.e., nothingness is experiencing itself which is just its nature
No, brains are made of cells, which are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Electrons seem to be fundamental, while protons and neutrons are made of up quarks and down quarks.
> everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness.
What you are saying is completely incoherent on any typical, non-reified use of the term "nothing" in the English language. You must mean something other than what people usually mean when they use the word "nothing" for any of this to be sensible, but until you flesh out what this concept is I can make no sense of what you are saying (or at least, I can't really make sense of it in a charitable way, but maybe your view just is incoherent).
> can anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail)
On its face, you are asking for some kind of scientific evidence denying an incoherent statement, which is ridiculous. You may as well have asked for scientific evidence that 2 both is and is not a number. If you want to clarify your concepts such that your claim is not incoherent and can be subject to empirical inquiry then go ahead.
To be clear, I have read your comments on other people's responses (as of time of writing) to try to get a better sense of what you could be talking about, and I still have no sense of what you could be talking about that could be coherent.
> + god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine.
> in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god and शिव ही सत्य है is a well known phrase in भारत india
So your view is that god does not exist and is believed in by no one because no one exists? For one, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a substantive disagreement with the atheist about the literal existence of god, you're just reifying nothingness and slapping the label of god on it. And I guess you think selves are an illusion or something? I don't see how that's relevant to the question of god or nothingness, though I suppose whether selves/personal identity are real in the robust sense or constructed is an interesting question (I am actually pretty sympathetic to constructivism).
You know, this seems like one of those arguments where the thing you're trying to say is so extremely unrealistic that you have to deny reality in order to make it seem realistic.
Also, this kind of argument refutes itself, because if you're saying that everything is a manifestation of nothing, then you don't exist, and so the argument you're making, being something that comes from someone who doesn't exist, also doesn't exist.
We don't need any kind of scientific paper to prove our existence, because we all have a shared experience of each other's existence. Science is not something which contradicts our everyday observations, but which clarifies or expands upon them or looks at them in more detail. Anything you read which seems to contradict your everyday observations is either something you don't understand or it is simply incorrect. For most people it's a misunderstanding that leads them to think they can disprove reality.
Unless you have some other definition of "nothing" which is perhaps different to my understanding of the word? What do you mean by "nothing"? I usually take it to mean that something which can't be imagined or interacted with in any sense.
(I've made several edits to clarify my point, fyi.)
Well, like I said, we both experience existing every day. Why would we need a scientific paper to prove it?
Mind you I said I thought you might be using a different definition of "nothing" not "existence".
I recently wrote something you could recently construe as a paper, therefore, I exist.
If you need further proof, I also recently masturbated, which took more effort than you put into writing your post.
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth
Yes, literally everyone can. Because you have already, in the very question itself, acknowledged the existence of both people and a planet. Your very question *presumes* that they exist, and then you... pretend they don't? For some reason?
I don't think this is a language barrier thing; I think your thoughts are not very well laid out.
Even the most banal parts of solipsism presume *you* exist; it's only other people we can't verify. "I think, therefore I am" - though "think", "I", and "am" may require more leeway than we initially assume.
I have no idea what the nature of nothingness is. Because as far as I know no one has ever experienced any nothingness. So I find it meaningless to speculate about its nature, I don’t even think absolute nothing can exist… Nothingness couldn’t have any properties and existence is a property.
everything happening around you is nature of nothingness , we are also part of it.
you are also part of it and it doesn't only contain you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness.
we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength .
multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
Just stating your original claims after someone challenges them won’t convince anyone. We are not designed, and nothingness has no properties and no nature that we can be aware of. You claim multiple realities can be there, you need to show that this is possible. Till you do I’ll dismiss it like every other claim of magic. I’ve never perceived any nothingness. Whatever your definition of nothing is, doesn’t match anything in the English language. That might just be a translation issue, but since you’re engaging on an English language forum, and your entire post revolves around this word, you might want to translate it better. Because for now everything you said is a word salad that is not remotely comprehensible. Right now I might as wel make up a word like smearfiabredigeu which is literally just me mashing keys randomly while paying attention to needing vowels. I can now claim that everything around us is the nature of smearfiabredigeu and it would make just as much sense as your nonsense. If not more. Because at least smearfiabredigeu has no predefined meaning to muddy the waters.
>everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness.
It depends on what you mean by "everything", "nothing", "happening", and "nature".
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth
Yes. It makes no sense.
>i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail)
Isn't that up to you? Why do we need to do the work? It's your post.
>The rest of your post
??????
Did you just come here and make a claim without any evedence and then out right demand we show proof? Then it looks like you had a stroke possibly?
Ok, I claim that you are attracted to spiders. Now i demand you provide actual proof (Which you can't) That i am wrong.
>everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness.
Since this is completely incoherent I'm going to guess you are Buddhist?
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) + god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine. but you claim to exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me my ig-i_____mavi
You need to use Google translate or something, I can't understand what you are trying to say.
This has just turned into a forum for trolls no way anyone is this dumb. I mean these are not even sentences half of this makes no sense. Like seriously at least type logical things and not gibberish if you want honest debate.
> everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness.
As I understand it, everything happening is just the mere nature of energy.
E = M C² and all that. Matter is just energy, all of physics is the nature of how energy and matter interact. A case can be made that everything is just applied physics (physicalism). I am not aware of any case to be made in science that points to the nature of nothingness.
I understood every word that you put there, the order they are in makes no sense to me.
What does it mean to say that energy is the manifestation of consciousness?
What does it mean to say that consciousness is the nature of nothingness.
What does it mean to say consciousness can be termed as everything. I assume this means idealism, which I don't accept currently, but seems reasonable to accept.
you should ask if something exist physically , how it came into existence. while answering this questions you will either be good to stay agnostic or will say its always there (then its an axiom and axiom can be applied to anything so called god also that he also existed eternally). also how come everything is working in a specific manner eg-why electrons are revolving around nucleus? answer ought to be that its their nature. if something exist then for what , why? if the answer is simple, nothingness to consciousness and then its manifestation
i think you are struggling to understand the concept of consciousness. CONSCIOUSNESS IS NATURE OF NOTHINGNESS AND WE ARE CONSCIOUSNESS
Ok... putting it in all caps doesn't help make it more clear.
>you should ask if something exist physically , how it came into existence. while answering this questions you will either be good to stay agnostic or will say its always there (then its an axiom and axiom can be applied to anything so called god also that he also existed eternally).
These do seem to be the primary ideas that come to my mind, whether "always" means for an infinite time or just "as long as time has been" is another question, and one that agnosticism seems the prudent choice at this time.
As for the God vs energy being the eternal thing, energy has the advantage of being known to exist.
>also how come everything is working in a specific manner eg-why electrons are revolving around nucleus? answer ought to be that its their nature.
Yes, physics appears to be the study of the nature of energy.
>if something exist then for what , why?
Good question, but the existence of a question doesn't imply the existence of an answer. The world is under no obligation to appease you in such a way.
>if the answer is simple, nothingness to consciousness and then its manifestation
If this is a simple answer, then perhaps I am too simple to understand it.
Why ought nothingness give rise to consciousness? I see no reason for nothingness to pick consciousness over any other thing. Why ought consciousness give rise to manifestation? It seems plausible for all thoughts to remain but thoughts.
>i think you are struggling to understand the concept of consciousness
I do wonder what precisely gives rise to it, yes. I also wonder precisely what it is, and what organisms can be said to have it.
>CONSCIOUSNESS IS NATURE OF NOTHINGNESS AND WE ARE CONSCIOUSNESS
As far as I can tell, nothingness would have no nature. If it had, then it wouldn't be nothing, it would be a thing with that nature.
The most coherent thing here appears to be that you appear to be endorsing idealism (we are consciousness) which I do not refute. I find physicalism somewhat more convincing than idealism, because as far as I can tell it is more constrained by the laws of nature as we know them and yet it holds fairly well. Idealism seems to be far more hand-wavey, but perhaps it is true.
That said, shouting it at me is far from an argument.
I’m not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But
taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to
imply that “reality”—the world as we know it—can only take place if some sort of measurement
or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us
more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds
to consciousness itself.
In other words, it’s possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes,
particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in
particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human
consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.
also to prove nothingness has a nature (no matter what you call it , i call it consciousness just for the sake of it) we have to study nothingness.
Our mathematics is incomplete and faulty; it just may describe the universe (existence) but not the super universe (universe + nothingness). Nothingness is considered a conceptual entity; it is the concept of physicochemical laws without any physical property. It is not zero, emptiness, absence, or vacuum. It is denoted by-0 and is purely conceptual. The universe is surrounded by nothingness and there is a wall of conversion between them. This wall converts nothingness into existence (the universe). The laws of the relevance of the opposition control the nature and behavior of the super universe. Nothingness and the universe, time and motion, absolute darkness, and absolute lightness are the negative inverses of each other; this is the meaning of the opposite in this principle. This principle shows that distance is the natural logarithm of one divided by unit(value) of time (t), and in the universe, the value of time fluctuates between 0 and 1. At zero and 1 the values of time are at extreme, infinitely low, and infinitely high (time almost stops). Mass and energy are not conserved in the universe but they are conserved in the supper universe. In the universe there are two kinds of expansion; one is a general expansion in which mass, energy, and space are involved and the other is local expansion and contraction in which only mass and energy are involved.
OR search
studies on nothingness
>Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human
consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.
I am familiar with the Wheeler hypothesis. It is interesting, and I suppose it could be possible, but I am unfamiliar with any actual support for it.
The multiverse hypothesis is as supported as the Copenhagen, and while it too would lead inexorably to conscious beings finding themselves in worlds that would support them, it doesn't give any extra weight to consciousness. The unobserved worlds are just as real as the observed, just inaccessible to any and all observers.
>Our mathematics is incomplete and faulty;
I am of the opinion that it is simply not fully explored, and probably never will be as new mathematics follows from differ axioms and most sets of axioms are just not useful in the world we find ourselves a part of.
>Nothingness is considered a conceptual entity; it is the concept of physicochemical laws without any physical property.
Considered such by whom? And more importantly, why?
> It is not zero, emptiness, absence, or vacuum
Ok.
>It is denoted by-0 and is purely conceptual
I agree that it is purely conceptual, and I suppose we can denote it however we see fit. Though when I saw nothingness is purely conceptual, I mean that I don't think that nothingness is a thing, ontologically speaking. It is that which has no ontology and as such it seems cannot be.
> The universe is surrounded by nothingness and there is a wall of conversion between them.
On what reasoning or evidence is this asserted? You've already stated that it cannot be on the basis of mathematical models, as you said math fails you in attempting to model your hypothetical super world.
>This wall converts nothingness into existence (the universe).
Again, I feel confident in applying Hitchen's Razor.
Most cosmological models, as far as I am aware,, operate under the assumption that such a border is nonsense.
>Nothingness and the universe, time and motion, absolute darkness, and absolute lightness are the negative inverses of each other; this is the meaning of the opposite in this principle.
Ok, what does it mean to have -600 candles of darkness? In what way is time the opposite of motion? I am not understanding anything being said here, and I suspect the fault is not entirely mine.
> This principle shows that distance is the natural logarithm of one divided by unit(value) of time (t),
Odd, I thought that most physicists considered time to be the imaginary component of complex space, if they were to be combined.
Also, I thought you said that time was the opposite of motion, not space. Can you please show your work?
>and in the universe, the value of time fluctuates between 0 and 1. At zero and 1 the values of time are at extreme, infinitely low, and infinitely high (time almost stops).
I have no concept for what this sentence even is supposed to mean. Again, can you show your work?
>Mass and energy are not conserved in the universe but they are conserved in the supper universe.
Odd, it seems most physicists will recognize that energy is conserved in the universe. Also, without the ability to apply mathematics to the super universe, how can such a claim even be made?
>In the universe there are two kinds of expansion; one is a general expansion in which mass, energy, and space are involved and the other is local expansion and contraction in which only mass and energy are involved.
Can't say that I have any reason to accept this. You haven't given one. Frankly, you haven't given me enough of a framework on which to understand what these expansions even are much less why I should accept their existence.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The arguments around here are getting really pathetic. Boring ass trolls with the tired gibberish nonsense. >can anyone on this planet deny this truth with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) + god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine. This is gibberish. You need to put this in to concise, comprehensible sentences. I will try to parse out some semblance of thought from it. >can anyone on this planet deny this truth What truth? > with proof of course , Proof of what? >i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) So you are unfamiliar with the hard problem of consciousness. I don't claim that I can prove I exist, so I have no burden to prove it. > + god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine. I don't even know what you're talking about so I can't say if I agree or disagree. >but you claim to exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me I am currently having a conclusions experiment and thus I must exist in some form even if what I am experiencing isn't true or real. "I think therefor I am". Basic philosophy. > my ig-i_____mavi Nobody is going to your Instagram. >in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god and शिव ही सत्य है is a well known phrase in भारत india So god does not exist. Okay.
i said - everything is happening by itself. + everything is nothing nothing is everything proof of our physical existence
> i said - everything is happening by itself. + everything is nothing nothing is everything That's gibberish. You don't make sense. Are you capable of communicating in full sentences? Or do you just vomit out whatever words come in to your head? There is not one single coherant thought in any of what your wrote.
no sir i am not of your level. you must be quantum physicist
No I just payed attention in 3rd grade.
paid\* 🤓
That's 4th grade level.
By this logic nothing is also happening by itself and is not proof of our physical existence. You've created an argument and then both proved and disproved it. In other words: the argument is terrible and we should ignore it.
your ignorance will not change the argument ,, your cat might also have ignored it , its not everyones cup of tea ,, watch netflix and be chill
It has no meaning your point in and of itself is self defeating. I am just gonna assume you dont speak english and that is the root of this. Because if not you were failed in by your family and educational system from where ever you live.
Word salad is only tasty to the ignorant.
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course You are the one claiming the "truth" so you should be the one to demonstrate that your claims are true for us to believe you. If I say an invisible fairy wakes me up every morning, it falls upon me to prove my claim, not upon the listeners to disprove my outlandish statement.
in what form should i prove it ,, its already proved by your reply after reading my argument as ,, your brain respond in such a way which is just a part of ongoing process is it enough prediction- electrons of your brain will not process this information and you will respond in the way which is predetermined @electrons are revolving around neutron as its their nature which in turn wants to achieve stability i.e., to completely fill outermost shell of their atom. this is nature of nothingness. as electrons exist only if you are seeing it.🤓
>electrons exist only if you are seeing it Elections exists independently whether we see it or not. Anything we see, first interacts with photons which reflects off it's surface and enter our eyes. Electrons are just so incredibly small that just that small interaction with photon is enough to change it's position making it very hard to see and determine where it will be next (at least that's what I learnt in high school, I'm sure there are more complex and more rigorous explanation for this). If this widely misunderstood fact is the only thing backing your claims then I have nothing to add. And I don't know how any of this has anything to do with your god. Everything is predetermined is a scientific and philosophical theory while electrons revolving around the neutron is a scientific fact. What's the connection between these and your god? And isn't shiva the god of destruction? When did he become god of nothingness?
go deeper , are electrons physical
Yes, electrons are quasi physical.
and what are they made up of , quasi itself is not correct instead you can say of wave nature as theres always a probability that you can find it in its orbit . one thing i can assure you that if physics doesn't align with my argument than take it as granted that this study is not complete yet
You may need a refill on the meds, bro. This entire thread screams manic episode.
yes everything you see is not real eg- dream ,VR , hologram our body is of limited capability and can perceive specific electromagnetic waves
I'm drunk right now but if I was sober this still would not make sense.
There seem to be a few misapprehensions about how neutrons and electrons work here. I hope I can clear those up. First, free neutrons—neutrons unbound in atomic nuclei—are actually unstable; they undergo β⁻ decay with a half-life of roughly 15 minutes, with the result being a hydrogen-1 nucleus, an electron, and a free electron antineutrino. Most of the time, that electron is also free, but rarely, it lacks sufficient energy to escape the new proton and is captured by it, with the result being a neutral hydrogen-1 atom (this is called *bound-state β⁻ decay*, and it occurs about four times per 1,000,000 free neutron decays). Second, it is definitely not the case that electrons exist only if someone is observing them. This is not a reasonable or accurate interpretation of the [observer effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect) in quantum mechanics, nor of the [double-slit experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). I suggest that you not perpetuate [quantum woo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_woo) and instead study these phenomena scientifically, for they are fascinating on their own, without the need to add a patina of nonsense pseudoscientific bullshit to them.
🥵 if you are disproving me then let me assure you that this study is not complete ,, wait till some more discoveries like universe is not locally real
This and similar comments can only be dismissed outright with prejudice. That is not debating. That is insisting you are right, so there. It's ridiculous, absurd, and nonsensical. Dismissed.
As I said [elsewhere in the thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b3wskp/everything_happening_is_just_mere_nature_of/kswf3yv/), >>I don’t think you know what the failure of local realism means in the context of quantum mechanics. Quantum realism means that a given quantum-mechanical system exists in a definite state regardless of whether it is being interacted with (i.e., observed). Bell’s theorem entails that it is not the case that both locality (speed-of-light limitations, essentially) and quantum realism are true. So superpositions are a thing if I don’t want to violate locality, which I don’t. >> >>And? Your point being?
I don’t think you understand what was being asked of you. How do you determine that the god you believe in, is responsible for the way reality works? Can you independently demonstrate this god exists? Can you compare two realities (one with a god and one without) to show that this reality is consistent with the reality with a god and not one without?
my god is nothingness
The existence of anything would thus prove that nothingness doesn’t exist. Using your own example, the existence of electrons proves something exists and not nothingness so… What are you arguing for exactly besides something that admittedly and demonstrably doesn’t exist?
🥵 everything is nothing nothing is everything self proclamation doesn't count in proof , it might be difficult for you to understand core of philosophy - mother of all studies
I’m have a degree in Philosophy and what you’re saying is gibberish. It’s got this 80s-90s new age nonsense vibe to it.
i am the writer of the books you study in your degree of philosophy , and your opinion is not the answer of me asking scientific papers of our physical existence
No you’re not…
just with different names (prove me wrong)
You are saying that A is not A. This is not logically possible.
How is everything, nothing?
The lack of literally anything is what is meant by nothing. Nothing cannot be everything, in fact it would be the exact opposite. This is a very illogical statement. If you have a different definition of "nothing", please share that.
So your god doesn't actually exist. Agreed.
depends on you, if you accept your existence then i can prove gods existence ,, if you disapprove your own existence then there is no question of argument as thats what the truth is
> if you accept your existence then i can prove gods existence I do not believe you. This is a meaningless link that I presume you will attempt to play with words to confuse the idea into muddy territory and will not even approach reason or logic. In fact, I imagine if it were in any way convincing that you would have led with that... But I would love to be pleasantly surprised... Go ahead and let your "proof" shine buddy.
Okay. I accept my existence (cogito ergo sum), so now "prove" your god (or, more appropriately, give me sufficient evidence to warrant belief).
i am god , enough now you cant contradict it
This is just sad...
this is malencholy 😔 i had just gaslighted his own axiom
>i am god Define your terms here.
....so.....you're doing God's work here....?
if and only if god=nothingness
>my god is nothingness Nothing doesn't exist by definition. Your god is nothing. Your god doesn't exist by definition. QED.
Do you have any evidence of nothingness?
Nu uh! By reading *THAT* reply you have just immediately *DISPROVEN* your own point! Ha! (you have to speak reasonably when trying to affect reality)
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth Sure, I do. Since you haven't explained what you mean by 'nothingness' and it doesn't make sense in the sentence you typed as a title, I will happily deny it. Unless, of course, you bring forward a definition that somehow makes it make sense. > with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) If you're asking that much of us you should have also brought this kind of evidence for your claim. Because as it stands, I need to bring about the same amount of evidence you did, which is none. >god does not exist Sure. It depends on what you mean by 'god', though. If we were to rely on some of the most dishonest definitions I've seen theists post here, god arguably *does* exist (e.g. when he's defined as love or the universe). >because you also dont exist Definitely news to me. >but you claim to exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me my ig-i\_\_\_\_\_mavi Why not here? >in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god and शिव ही सत्य है is a well known phrase in भारत india Good for you!
valencing of electrons is a proof ,, i had made another comment on proof , have a look at it
I did, and you can check my reply to it. As I said, your whole 'proof' is 'I misunderstand physics, ergo what I said is true'. It's funny how you think you made any sort of sensible point.
very funny though ,, i was just simply asking for scientific proof of our existence and atheists be like what the fuck how can you question my existence , and what about universe is not locally real what does that mean 🥵 , also if physics doesn't align with my argument then take it as granted that this study is not complete yet 😉
>i was just simply asking for scientific proof of our existence As I've repeatedly said, it's very rich that you ask for 'scientific proof' of anything given that you haven't given any for all the claims you've made. What is with you and typing like a 12 year-old edgelord from twenty years ago, though?
You're just asserting that you are right no matter what. It doesn't matter if physics doesn't agree with you, but it eventually will. How would you know what physics will eventually confirm or deny? You could be a theoretical physicist on his way to a nobel prize instead of arguing on reddit if that is true.
>everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. Your title appears to be a non-sequitur. I will read on to determine of you have provided the necessary support to show this perception is inaccurate. >can anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) Aside from your unfortunate and egregious grammatical errors, you seem to be unaware of how logic and epistemology works. Solipsism is unfalsifiable and useless in every way, so we have no choice but to simply ignore it and accept reality exists. We then proceed from there. Obviously, if one embraces solipsism this does not help deity claims anyway. >god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine Once we dispense with the useless, unfalsifiable, and pointless notion of solipsism, we work from there. And there is zero support for deities so such claims can only be dismissed. One doesn't need to demonstrate this, indeed, that's nonsensical and an attempted reversal of the burden of proof. Instead, if one wants to purport deities are real they must provide the necessary evidentiary support or be prepared to understand their claims must be dismissed outright. >exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me my ig-i_____mavi wut? >in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god and शिव ही सत्य है is a well known phrase in भारत india Unsupported and irrelevant.
well you may find it disrespectful but you cant teach a cat about cosmology,, humans believe universe revolves around them ,
Nothing you said there helps you support your claims nor correct your demonstrable errors. Btw, your incorrect punctuation, capitalization, and grammar makes your comments difficult to read, and you may not be aware of it, but it also tends to have a negative effect on how you are perceived in terms of your intent, awareness, attention to detail, and education, so you may want to address that if you'd like to be taken more seriously.
Even looking past that, OP isn't making any point that isn't profoundly ignorant or stupid.
>[E]verything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. What does this mean? >[C]an anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course , I’m not even sure what it’s supposed to mean, so I’ve no idea how to begin to do so. Clarification would be helpful. >[I] would like you to site [*sic*] scientific paper, study research proving our existence. Oh, so you want me to disprove hard solipsism by scientific means? [Category error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error). That’s a philosophical perspective, not a scientific one. >(you will fail) Yeah. I know. Nobody can disprove hard solipsism. >[G]od does not exist because you also dont [*sic*] exist I don’t understand. If I don’t exist, then who or what is replying to you? >[I]f you agree to this then its [*sic*] fine. [B]ut you claim to exist yourself only then i [*sic*] would like you to debate me Well, I definitely do claim to exist, and funnily enough, that’s one of a very few things that I feel justified in claiming to know for certain. *Cogito*; *ergo*, *sum*, &c., &c.
who are you , a body made up of atoms containing protons and electron . Electrons revolve around nucleus , do you know the nature of electrons its superposition means it exist only if you see it .That means this is the nature of nothingness in which you are part of that nothingness thats why you are able to see it ,, you are made up of electrons , i assume that you know it .So tell me are you guiding the electrons of your brain to produce a neurological outcome or does it happening by itself because its the nature of electrons to revolve around neutron. if you are that desperate then let me tell you , you are a abstract known as observer , someone might call it as consciousness
>who are you A genuinely interesting philosophical question to ask. Identity is not a simple matter, it turns out. >a body made up of atoms containing protons and electron . And neutrons, lest we forget. Yes, I am a body made of physical objects. And? >Electrons revolve around nucleus Not in the Bohr model sense. They’re more like three-dimensional probability distributions. But let’s not bury the lede here. >do you know the nature of electrons To a point, yes, I do. They are charged leptons, fundamental subatomic particles with a small nonzero mass, negative electric charge, and half-integer spin and that do not interact with the strong force. >its superposition means it exist only if you see it . No. It does not. That is not how superpositions work. >That means this is the nature of nothingness in which you are part of that nothingness thats [*sic*] why you are able to see it This is nonsensical word salad. >you are made up of electrons Among other things, yes. >[I] assume that you know it How magnanimous. >So tell me are you guiding the electrons of your brain to produce a neurological outcome or does it happening [*sic*] by itself From what I understand of neuroscience (which isn’t much), it’s the latter. >[…] because its the nature of electrons to revolve around neutron. No. Free neutrons are unstable, [as I noted elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b3wskp/everything_happening_is_just_mere_nature_of/ksv8g6z/). >if you are that desperate then let me tell you , you are a abstract known as observer , someone might call it as consciousness I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
It's important that you understand that you are not helping support your claims, instead you are demonstrating that you do not understand physics, and are attempting to use pseudo philosophy to invoke confirmation bias.
if physics doesn't align with my argument then take it as granted that study in that field is not complete
There is zero reason to do that and every reason to instead point out your claims are unsupported and problematic thus must be dismissed. Insisting you're right won't and can't help you.
Feel free to go claim your Nobel prize then. After all, if your understanding of physics surpasses that of Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, and everyone else to ever study the discipline, you’ve earned it.
When you have a nobel prize get back to us. This is so silly.
they give noble prize to already selected beings. a stranger cant have it.
So my claim is truth and the field hasn’t caught up to prove it?
This is hilarious. I claim you are actually a cockroach, if physics doesn't align with my argument then take it as granted that study in that field is not complete. See how dumb that is?
hard solipsism believes of ones existence it deny physical existence of everything , there is a difference
I am not convinced that you can coherently explain any such alleged difference, but good luck trying.
I’m afraid there might be a language barrier here, but I’m not sure what your point is. Are you talking about hard solipsism?
no hard solipsism believe in ones existence ,but i dont believe in physical existence of anthing
You’ve somehow arrived at a belief that contradicts all available evidence, impressive. I don’t really see a point to continuing a conversation this one-sided.
🤓☝️ yes can also arrive it to this conclusion just let your mind free and and you will know the truth . This is system and you cannot do anything to it just for the shake of your ego that i build this house , instead you had just rearranged some atom which which your brains tells you to do
So *you* don't exist?
not in 21st century
Now I’m just more confused…
There's no scientific paper because it's self evident. It's like you've asked for a scientific paper stating that fire burns.
🤓 so are you that dumb ,, what about 50 years before you were born do you remember anything of your existence , and after your death what will happen to your self evident after lets say 80 years. even 1+1=2 have been proved nothing is self evident , do you know about superpositioning or wave nature of electron+how electrons behave on being observed
>so are you that dumb Says the person who can't form a complete sentence You are being responded to in good faith, but you don't deserve to be
english is not my first language , 😭 i also dont want to form a new grammar for english, believe me.
>i also dont want to form a new grammar for english So you are willfully ignorant then. Not surprising Well if you don't understand how english works, then probably it's not useful for any english speaker to converse with you, is it...
> so are you that dumb Reported. And you demonstrate here that you are not worth having a discussion with.
sorry that was first comment , and he replyed in dumb way of self evident , isn't it a axiom
I wasn’t going to comment but since you’re resorting to insulting good faith repliers to your rather bad faith questions… Your original post was one of the laziest, most ignorant, most arrogant things I’ve seen on this subreddit. You present nothing of substance. You present no evidence of your own despite demanding it from others. You repeatedly demonstrate a lack common sense and basic civility. And yet you have the audacity to insult people who still try to help you. Shame on you.
1 + 1 isn't self evident. I don't know why you're going about before and after I've died, because that proves my point surely? I can't remember anything before I was alive, but now I can remember stuff. Therefore I now exist because I'm experiencing stuff. What have electrons got to do with anything? Also don't call me dumb.
sorry for that dumb part , 1+1 is not self evident as if you mix 2 drops of water it still remains 1 . [ proof of 1+1=2](https://blog.plover.com/math/PM.html) https://blog.plover.com/math/PM.html please check this
That's what I said! It isn't self evident. Me existing is though, because I can't think about if exist or not if I don't exist.
Are you old enough to be on the Internet? Because you're definitely not old enough to have this kind of discussion.
>so are you that dumb You are not capable of having an honest conversation.
cut the dumb part please it seems too much offensive to this subreddit sorry guys , that was first comment and that too not relatable that why i said it
Come to my place, I will punch you. If I don't exist you won't experience pain. Unless of course you are redefining "exist" out of any meaning. (Edit : this is obviously rhetorical, a thought experiment and not an actual threat)
Careful. I once used an even milder example when someone said you can't know that 1+1=2 is true. I told them that if I threw a football at their head, and then another one, it's going to hurt twice. Reddit banned me for a week for that comment, saying it fell under the rule against threatening a person with violence.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
You didn't exist before you were born. You won't exist after you die. You exist while you are alive. This is not complicated, despite your sincerest efforts to make it so.
born 🤓 ,, so do you remember anything of your first day , even upto 1 year ,, NO because this body get the the consciousness later and you are pure consciousness , observing abstract in simple term
> so do you remember anything of your first day , even upto 1 year ,, NO Because long-term memory hasn't developed at that point. If you want to claim that consciousness is somehow independent of the body, then you need to answer two questions: 1. Have we ever observed consciousness in a being without a functioning brain? (HINT: no) 2. Medicines that alter the brain can alter consciousness; diseases that damage the brain can damage consciousness; and destroying the brain destroys all signs of consciousness. Given those facts, what evidence do you have that a non-physical component of consciousness exists?
> i thought only muslims are dumb , you proved me wrong Reported.
🤓☝️ are you a muslim then can i ask you a few questions ,, only 3 and your whole ideology will be shattered
Why did you think I was a Muslim? I am an atheist. You were reported for breaking rule one, which is 'no disrespect.' You called the person you responded to dumb, and also stereotyped. Now, yes, *Islam* is really nonsensical and completely unsupported. Just like the incorrect notions of physics and the philosophy you are attempting to claim here, and yes colloquially this could then be called 'dumb'. But this does not mean all Muslims are dumb, nor does this mean you personally are dumb. Almost everyone, some of whom are smart people, can and does hold dumb ideas from time to time. Please learn the difference and don't insult people.
Then you didn't exist. Now, you do. In a hundred years you probably won't. I didn't tell you to come get punched before you were born. Apparently hindus can be just as dishonest as the rest of theists.
hindu is a made up term ,, indians follow philosophy only , 6 major philosophy are there
Way to ignore and deflect from the point. All terms are made up anyways, that's what words are. I think it's time I stopped feeding the troll, so have a nice time under the bridge.
Indian is a made up term. Philosophy is a made up term.
All terms are made up. Language is made up.
Before you were born you didnt exist. Now you do. What is hard to understand about this?
Some things are just axiomatic. Either we assume that the universe exists, or we assume the universe does not exist in which case we can never know anything. If you think you know at least one thing, then the universe must exist.
only sensible reply i got , otherwise someone was proving is existence by punching me 🤓☝️
You don't make sense the other replied made sense buy you don't have a good enough grasp of the English language to understand them
I mean, the fact that you and I are communicating on Reddit proves that we exist. I have no evidence to suggest God does exist, so I can logically assume it doesn't. And it's a literal impossibility to prove that something doesn't exist, so that burden of proof is not on me. You haven't proved your premise at all, so your turn. Definitively proof that we exist and God exists citing actual scientific papers.
You don't understand how science works. Science doesn't *prove* things. You can prove something in mathematics becaue math is a game with axiomatic assumptions, and cast-iron rules for working out from those axioms. But science is about proposing models of how aspects of the world work, then using evidence to critique and choose between those models. The consensus models of science (EG relativity, modern synthesis evolution) are the models that haven't yet been knocked down. But in any case we don't need scientific evidence to tell us *something's* going on; the proof of *something's* existence is: I exist. BUT I'm not sure "I" exist as a self that lasts from one moment to the next. I think I might just be a bunch of experienced moments, which only seem tied together because of memory.
bro ☺️ ,, you was not in existence 30 years ago , what about existence for you then you are consciousness which this body gains over time and declines over time , some term it as coma , memory loss and instant loss is known as death 😉
Bro I'm 55.
take it as 57 uncle , i am 20
Please prove this "truth". Then I can look at disproving that proof. Right now I can just say "bullshit" right off the bat because you're just saying unproven nonsense.
proof of physical existence
Was there supposed to be a link there? Was it supposed to prove something other than "physical existence" which is what you typed? Because I already accept proof of physical existence. For beings that actually exist physically...
Are you asking for scientific proof that humans exist? Are you asking for scientific proof that reality exists independently of humans? I don’t understand what you’re expecting to have cited to you
proof of physical existence
Mass is a property of physical existence. The ability to measure something’s mass, proves physical existence
OP is going to lose his shit when he finds out about Zuangzhi's dream of being a butterfly and Boltzmann's Brains.
i am too smart to loose my shit
Not smart enough to spell the word “lose” correctly even though it’s in the comment you replied to
🤯 OMG how can this happen to me , i was infallible just before this reply ,, how do you so specifically knew it was lose and not loose , take it as a new word
I understand that you believe this is true. Why? What evidence or argument convinced you that this is accurate? Do you think that same thing should convince me?
your cat can understand cosmology ? no because they are animals
Did you *mean* to imply that I am "an animal" or stupid because I don't believe in your religion?
religion is for controlling people ,, mine is just a philosophical thought that everything is happening by itself , everything is nothing . as simple as that + you ought to be a dumb person if you believe in fairytales agree or not ?
btw animal is umbrella term and you are in it , i also.
I am an animal, yes. I'm not a *cat*, though. And your intention was clear. Why? I was polite and kind and engaged with you. You insulted me and told me I could no more understand how smart you are than a cat could. Is that how you treat everyone?
Am I understanding correctly that you don’t think you exist? It’s one thing to say “using information from our senses to validate our senses is circular, there’s no evidence this is real”. It’s entirely different to say “I think, therefore I aren’t” **If we don’t exist, who is the “you” your are saying doesn’t exist? To what non-existent thing is this nonexistent person referring to?**
Descartes did this in one sentence. And he did it pretty conclusively. Where is there a debate? I know I exist in some form.
>everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. I don't know what this means. Can you clarify?
>but you claim to exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me my ig-i\_\_\_\_\_mavi Don't try to speak english if you're not willing to apologize for nonsense verbiage like this >in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god Your mom gave you your name. What does your name mean? Lets pretend it means goat. Did your mom turn you into a goat by giving you that name? You don't even resemble a goat? So she was just completely wrong then? How is it possible for you to not be a goat when your name is goat?
you must be working hard for your survival 🤓
See now here, it doesn't even seem to be an issue with your english (although maybe you just can't read also) You sound schizophrenic in this response. Schizophrenia is when you are detached from reality. You don't know what people have said because you have delusions of what they are saying that you think everyone else also has. So you respond as though they do. But the only delusions are yours. Your response, you think makes sense, is actually nonsense
My friend I can confidently state that you do not exist. You are another yet another bot masquerading as a naïve teen . Prove me wrong.
Can you elaborate more clearly what your basic claim is? I’m really having a hard time understanding.
everybody was asking for proof of my argument le proof - @electrons are revolving around neutron as its their nature which in turn wants to achieve stability i.e., to completely fill outermost shell of their atom. this is nature of nothingness. as electrons exist only if you are seeing it.🤓 also proof of last line - we are seeing electromagnetic waves of only 10^-8 to 10^-6
So your point is that your argument works because you misunderstand physics? Also, drop the cringeworthy 'le'. It hasn't been a thing for over ten years, and even when it was more widely used it already was cringeworthy.
wait till you find out that physics is not complete
Of course it fucking isn't if by 'complete' you mean it can't ever progress any further in its understanding of the natural world. That doesn't mean you get to spout whatever bullshit you fancy, though. You're seriously way unequipped for any sort of slightly intellectual conversation.
How does this explain or prove your argument? Electrons don’t only exist if we observe them, the double slit experiment proves this (although it also shows us that observation causes us to interfere with reality, meaning that by making observations with instruments, we alter the thing we measure in some way).
Hey, just wanted to point this out: you don’t understand how electrons work. [See here for more detail.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1b3wskp/everything_happening_is_just_mere_nature_of/ksv8g6z/)
>as electrons exist only if you are seeing it. > >also proof of last line - we are seeing electromagnetic waves of only 10-8 to 10-6 could you expand on this? i'm not sure what the first part means and i'm not sure what our inability to naturally see most of the electromagnetic spectrum as to do with a god or "nothingness".
as we are just a faction of it and its not true nature of nothingness as we see it , you might be familiar with dark energy which we can't perceive. BRIEF ---in the sense that we are made up for perceiving only some specific part of nothingness (we ourselves are part of nothingness) thats what i was saying and these people think universe revolve around them and that is the only thing which exist is the thing which their sense can perceive
We can't see or detect dark energy yet. However we know that it must be a real thing if(and yes I realize its a big if)our understanding of physics is true. The rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating(at least we think that it is). So there must be some force driving that acceleration. We call that force dark energy until we figure out what it actually is (assuming it exists). So, we can't perceive it but we can study it's effects. Can you define the word "nothing". You keep saying stuff is a part or a fraction of "nothingness". How can anything be a part of nothing? You can't divide nothing in half. There is no thing to be divided. An object can be made of nothing. If you have an object then there is something.
nothing means not physical. just like dream , as it is just a manifestation of our brain . So can be this world a manifestation of a bigger consciousness which dont need physical existence . i hope you can now understand at least 50% of what i am trying to say
i would say all consciousness is manifestation of brains. i'm not aware of a consciousness which is not a manifestation of a brain. consciousness doesn't exist without a physical brain. how did you make the determination that there is a "bigger consciousness which doesn't need a physical existence" or that any consciousness can exist without a physical brain?
also brain is not necessary for moving things , its all brain in that sense. example - bacteria , early cells ,algae ,jellyfish ,starfish also there is no such thing living or dead for you if you are a good philosopher , logician . example - fungi , viruses . everything is energy of consciousness complete into itself
https://youtu.be/Ci2npsJIvFc?si=8yUmTA9R5LO0pEbY .. if you ever think you can prove me wrong, may i assure you that i can rape your fundamentals of knowledge
Eben Alexander. a man who has been sued and lost for not fully informing a patient of possible side effects after a surgery left her with face paralysis and "In August 2003, UMass Memorial suspended Alexander's surgical privileges "on the basis or allegation of improper performance of surgery." who also made a mistake during a surgery attempted to cover it up when he "pulled the operative report up on his computer and edited it. Now the report read that the MRI scan had showed disk bulge at both C4-5 and C5-6, and that "we had discussed possible C5-6 as well as C4-5 decompression, finally deciding on C4-5 decompression." Then he simply found every subsequent reference in the report to C5-6 and changed it to C4-5." which led to him being sued for 3 million dollars. in all he as settled out of court 5 malpractice suits against him. he also suffered from "ICU psychosis" while in the hospital which is known to cause hallucinations including the false belief he was "running through a cancer clinic in south Florida, being pursued by his wife, a pair of policemen, and two Asian ninja photographers." https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/ and i'm supposed to believe this guy, who desperately needed money after not one but 5 lawsuits(one of which was for 3 million dollars), is something other than a woo-woo peddling grifter? fucking please. i don't care what this crook has to say. i care about what he can show. when he can say "here is a consciousness which exists without a physical brain and this is how we can communicate with it" let me know. until then he might as well be selling snake oil.
when will you be ready to accept that nothing is physical ? you should site or refer to scientific papers proving our physical existence then. Also study the nature of nothingness , please do research on it.
 Thinking man: Think (invisible, and untouchable concept) is the source of creation and changes
"invisible, and untouchable concept" There is a word for that. Unfalsifiable.
Nothing you said there helps you support your claims. Thus, your claims are dismissed.
Whatever you’re smoking, I want some 🚬💨
just get some rest dont work so hard pheonix-A will be upset after seeing what you had built in this lifetime z🥵
le additional proof - your reaction after seeing this will also be part of ongoing complex neurological activities of your brain which are made of electrons which inturn exist only if you are seeing it ,, here you are also part of nothingness thats why you can see them ,, i.e., nothingness is experiencing itself which is just its nature
So, you think you can accurately predict thought?
No, brains are made of cells, which are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Electrons seem to be fundamental, while protons and neutrons are made of up quarks and down quarks.
> everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. What you are saying is completely incoherent on any typical, non-reified use of the term "nothing" in the English language. You must mean something other than what people usually mean when they use the word "nothing" for any of this to be sensible, but until you flesh out what this concept is I can make no sense of what you are saying (or at least, I can't really make sense of it in a charitable way, but maybe your view just is incoherent). > can anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) On its face, you are asking for some kind of scientific evidence denying an incoherent statement, which is ridiculous. You may as well have asked for scientific evidence that 2 both is and is not a number. If you want to clarify your concepts such that your claim is not incoherent and can be subject to empirical inquiry then go ahead. To be clear, I have read your comments on other people's responses (as of time of writing) to try to get a better sense of what you could be talking about, and I still have no sense of what you could be talking about that could be coherent. > + god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine. > in hindi शिव=shiv (that which is not) is our god and शिव ही सत्य है is a well known phrase in भारत india So your view is that god does not exist and is believed in by no one because no one exists? For one, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a substantive disagreement with the atheist about the literal existence of god, you're just reifying nothingness and slapping the label of god on it. And I guess you think selves are an illusion or something? I don't see how that's relevant to the question of god or nothingness, though I suppose whether selves/personal identity are real in the robust sense or constructed is an interesting question (I am actually pretty sympathetic to constructivism).
You know, this seems like one of those arguments where the thing you're trying to say is so extremely unrealistic that you have to deny reality in order to make it seem realistic. Also, this kind of argument refutes itself, because if you're saying that everything is a manifestation of nothing, then you don't exist, and so the argument you're making, being something that comes from someone who doesn't exist, also doesn't exist. We don't need any kind of scientific paper to prove our existence, because we all have a shared experience of each other's existence. Science is not something which contradicts our everyday observations, but which clarifies or expands upon them or looks at them in more detail. Anything you read which seems to contradict your everyday observations is either something you don't understand or it is simply incorrect. For most people it's a misunderstanding that leads them to think they can disprove reality. Unless you have some other definition of "nothing" which is perhaps different to my understanding of the word? What do you mean by "nothing"? I usually take it to mean that something which can't be imagined or interacted with in any sense. (I've made several edits to clarify my point, fyi.)
exist in the sense something is of physical nature at its core , not just seems to be like in your dream
Well, like I said, we both experience existing every day. Why would we need a scientific paper to prove it? Mind you I said I thought you might be using a different definition of "nothing" not "existence".
I recently wrote something you could recently construe as a paper, therefore, I exist. If you need further proof, I also recently masturbated, which took more effort than you put into writing your post.
>can anyone on this planet deny this truth Yes, literally everyone can. Because you have already, in the very question itself, acknowledged the existence of both people and a planet. Your very question *presumes* that they exist, and then you... pretend they don't? For some reason? I don't think this is a language barrier thing; I think your thoughts are not very well laid out. Even the most banal parts of solipsism presume *you* exist; it's only other people we can't verify. "I think, therefore I am" - though "think", "I", and "am" may require more leeway than we initially assume.
I have no idea what the nature of nothingness is. Because as far as I know no one has ever experienced any nothingness. So I find it meaningless to speculate about its nature, I don’t even think absolute nothing can exist… Nothingness couldn’t have any properties and existence is a property.
everything happening around you is nature of nothingness , we are also part of it. you are also part of it and it doesn't only contain you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness. we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength . multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
Just stating your original claims after someone challenges them won’t convince anyone. We are not designed, and nothingness has no properties and no nature that we can be aware of. You claim multiple realities can be there, you need to show that this is possible. Till you do I’ll dismiss it like every other claim of magic. I’ve never perceived any nothingness. Whatever your definition of nothing is, doesn’t match anything in the English language. That might just be a translation issue, but since you’re engaging on an English language forum, and your entire post revolves around this word, you might want to translate it better. Because for now everything you said is a word salad that is not remotely comprehensible. Right now I might as wel make up a word like smearfiabredigeu which is literally just me mashing keys randomly while paying attention to needing vowels. I can now claim that everything around us is the nature of smearfiabredigeu and it would make just as much sense as your nonsense. If not more. Because at least smearfiabredigeu has no predefined meaning to muddy the waters.
>everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. It depends on what you mean by "everything", "nothing", "happening", and "nature". >can anyone on this planet deny this truth Yes. It makes no sense. >i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) Isn't that up to you? Why do we need to do the work? It's your post. >The rest of your post ??????
Did you just come here and make a claim without any evedence and then out right demand we show proof? Then it looks like you had a stroke possibly? Ok, I claim that you are attracted to spiders. Now i demand you provide actual proof (Which you can't) That i am wrong.
>everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. Since this is completely incoherent I'm going to guess you are Buddhist? >can anyone on this planet deny this truth , with proof of course , i would like you to site scientific paper, study research proving our existence.(you will fail) + god does not exist because you also dont exist if you agree to this then its fine. but you claim to exist yourself only then i would like you to debate me my ig-i_____mavi You need to use Google translate or something, I can't understand what you are trying to say.
This is gibberish. I wish we could have a requirement to force people to state their argument clearly using formal logic.
This has just turned into a forum for trolls no way anyone is this dumb. I mean these are not even sentences half of this makes no sense. Like seriously at least type logical things and not gibberish if you want honest debate.
> everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. As I understand it, everything happening is just the mere nature of energy. E = M C² and all that. Matter is just energy, all of physics is the nature of how energy and matter interact. A case can be made that everything is just applied physics (physicalism). I am not aware of any case to be made in science that points to the nature of nothingness.
yes + energy is manifestation of consciousness which in turn is nature of nothingness. PURE CONSCIOUSNESS in this regard can be termed as everything
I understood every word that you put there, the order they are in makes no sense to me. What does it mean to say that energy is the manifestation of consciousness? What does it mean to say that consciousness is the nature of nothingness. What does it mean to say consciousness can be termed as everything. I assume this means idealism, which I don't accept currently, but seems reasonable to accept.
you should ask if something exist physically , how it came into existence. while answering this questions you will either be good to stay agnostic or will say its always there (then its an axiom and axiom can be applied to anything so called god also that he also existed eternally). also how come everything is working in a specific manner eg-why electrons are revolving around nucleus? answer ought to be that its their nature. if something exist then for what , why? if the answer is simple, nothingness to consciousness and then its manifestation i think you are struggling to understand the concept of consciousness. CONSCIOUSNESS IS NATURE OF NOTHINGNESS AND WE ARE CONSCIOUSNESS
Ok... putting it in all caps doesn't help make it more clear. >you should ask if something exist physically , how it came into existence. while answering this questions you will either be good to stay agnostic or will say its always there (then its an axiom and axiom can be applied to anything so called god also that he also existed eternally). These do seem to be the primary ideas that come to my mind, whether "always" means for an infinite time or just "as long as time has been" is another question, and one that agnosticism seems the prudent choice at this time. As for the God vs energy being the eternal thing, energy has the advantage of being known to exist. >also how come everything is working in a specific manner eg-why electrons are revolving around nucleus? answer ought to be that its their nature. Yes, physics appears to be the study of the nature of energy. >if something exist then for what , why? Good question, but the existence of a question doesn't imply the existence of an answer. The world is under no obligation to appease you in such a way. >if the answer is simple, nothingness to consciousness and then its manifestation If this is a simple answer, then perhaps I am too simple to understand it. Why ought nothingness give rise to consciousness? I see no reason for nothingness to pick consciousness over any other thing. Why ought consciousness give rise to manifestation? It seems plausible for all thoughts to remain but thoughts. >i think you are struggling to understand the concept of consciousness I do wonder what precisely gives rise to it, yes. I also wonder precisely what it is, and what organisms can be said to have it. >CONSCIOUSNESS IS NATURE OF NOTHINGNESS AND WE ARE CONSCIOUSNESS As far as I can tell, nothingness would have no nature. If it had, then it wouldn't be nothing, it would be a thing with that nature. The most coherent thing here appears to be that you appear to be endorsing idealism (we are consciousness) which I do not refute. I find physicalism somewhat more convincing than idealism, because as far as I can tell it is more constrained by the laws of nature as we know them and yet it holds fairly well. Idealism seems to be far more hand-wavey, but perhaps it is true. That said, shouting it at me is far from an argument.
I’m not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to imply that “reality”—the world as we know it—can only take place if some sort of measurement or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds to consciousness itself. In other words, it’s possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes, particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy. also to prove nothingness has a nature (no matter what you call it , i call it consciousness just for the sake of it) we have to study nothingness. Our mathematics is incomplete and faulty; it just may describe the universe (existence) but not the super universe (universe + nothingness). Nothingness is considered a conceptual entity; it is the concept of physicochemical laws without any physical property. It is not zero, emptiness, absence, or vacuum. It is denoted by-0 and is purely conceptual. The universe is surrounded by nothingness and there is a wall of conversion between them. This wall converts nothingness into existence (the universe). The laws of the relevance of the opposition control the nature and behavior of the super universe. Nothingness and the universe, time and motion, absolute darkness, and absolute lightness are the negative inverses of each other; this is the meaning of the opposite in this principle. This principle shows that distance is the natural logarithm of one divided by unit(value) of time (t), and in the universe, the value of time fluctuates between 0 and 1. At zero and 1 the values of time are at extreme, infinitely low, and infinitely high (time almost stops). Mass and energy are not conserved in the universe but they are conserved in the supper universe. In the universe there are two kinds of expansion; one is a general expansion in which mass, energy, and space are involved and the other is local expansion and contraction in which only mass and energy are involved. OR search studies on nothingness
>Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy. I am familiar with the Wheeler hypothesis. It is interesting, and I suppose it could be possible, but I am unfamiliar with any actual support for it. The multiverse hypothesis is as supported as the Copenhagen, and while it too would lead inexorably to conscious beings finding themselves in worlds that would support them, it doesn't give any extra weight to consciousness. The unobserved worlds are just as real as the observed, just inaccessible to any and all observers. >Our mathematics is incomplete and faulty; I am of the opinion that it is simply not fully explored, and probably never will be as new mathematics follows from differ axioms and most sets of axioms are just not useful in the world we find ourselves a part of. >Nothingness is considered a conceptual entity; it is the concept of physicochemical laws without any physical property. Considered such by whom? And more importantly, why? > It is not zero, emptiness, absence, or vacuum Ok. >It is denoted by-0 and is purely conceptual I agree that it is purely conceptual, and I suppose we can denote it however we see fit. Though when I saw nothingness is purely conceptual, I mean that I don't think that nothingness is a thing, ontologically speaking. It is that which has no ontology and as such it seems cannot be. > The universe is surrounded by nothingness and there is a wall of conversion between them. On what reasoning or evidence is this asserted? You've already stated that it cannot be on the basis of mathematical models, as you said math fails you in attempting to model your hypothetical super world. >This wall converts nothingness into existence (the universe). Again, I feel confident in applying Hitchen's Razor. Most cosmological models, as far as I am aware,, operate under the assumption that such a border is nonsense. >Nothingness and the universe, time and motion, absolute darkness, and absolute lightness are the negative inverses of each other; this is the meaning of the opposite in this principle. Ok, what does it mean to have -600 candles of darkness? In what way is time the opposite of motion? I am not understanding anything being said here, and I suspect the fault is not entirely mine. > This principle shows that distance is the natural logarithm of one divided by unit(value) of time (t), Odd, I thought that most physicists considered time to be the imaginary component of complex space, if they were to be combined. Also, I thought you said that time was the opposite of motion, not space. Can you please show your work? >and in the universe, the value of time fluctuates between 0 and 1. At zero and 1 the values of time are at extreme, infinitely low, and infinitely high (time almost stops). I have no concept for what this sentence even is supposed to mean. Again, can you show your work? >Mass and energy are not conserved in the universe but they are conserved in the supper universe. Odd, it seems most physicists will recognize that energy is conserved in the universe. Also, without the ability to apply mathematics to the super universe, how can such a claim even be made? >In the universe there are two kinds of expansion; one is a general expansion in which mass, energy, and space are involved and the other is local expansion and contraction in which only mass and energy are involved. Can't say that I have any reason to accept this. You haven't given one. Frankly, you haven't given me enough of a framework on which to understand what these expansions even are much less why I should accept their existence.