WendyDarling

Logic question: Which is more logical... A) something coming from nothing B) something coming from something A or B? and why?

Dag asked too many questions which I could answer and the odds that any of my answers would be understood is nil so I will answer one question and wait for Dag’s reply before I continue. “Why does intelligence have to have always existed?” If you believe that any observable, perceivable phenomena can materialize fully formed from non-existence for no purpose what so ever, then intelligence wouldn’t be an eternal requirement, would it? Give examples of stuff materializing from non-existence. If you believe that everything can be made understandable and has some kind of purpose for its existence, then intelligence formed everything. We exist in a world of understanding, did the intelligence which forms our understanding pop out of non-existence or is it more reasonable that it has always existed, even before we existed, and we inherited some of that intelligence? What lack of intelligence resides in a formed atom? What lack of intelligence resides in trillions upon trillions of atoms forming a one-of-a-kind rock? Do one-of-a-kind rocks pop out of non-existence on a regular basis? Name everything that creates itself out of nothing. Does existence mean every perceivable, observable phenomena or stuff everywhere(all dimensions, all galaxies, all universes, all planes of existence)? Is non-existence antithetical to existence? Can they, existence and non-existence,both be present and share space? Yes or no? Do you need a scale to give a yes or no answer?

People are asking too many questions, so I am trying to start with logic 101. No. Recognition requires intelligence to create what is recognized. Your answer?

Is anyone going to answer my question about logic? Logic question: What is more logical... A) Something from nothing? B) Something from something? A or B?

What is more logical: A or B A) Something from nothing B) Something from something I am having trouble making myself understood and when I offered the definition for absolute singularity in which I then defined requested words, I don’t understand the following accusations that a definition was never given. To me, logic doesn’t need 100 or more words per assertion. Assertion:Creation cannot self-create. Makes clear and perfect sense to me. It has two meanings: A) There is no logic found anywhere, no actual real world example that any observable/perceivable thing can create itself out of nothing so based on that common understanding of reality, it is true that Creation could not have created itself which bring me to... B) Then Creation has always existed, as an absolute, eternal process, in order to create.

Existence in and of itself, every variation is intelligence formed into an order, a pattern. Patterns and order, complex systems interacting with other complex systems is intelligence actualized. Be absurd to say out of non-existence popped existence in all its splendor. Be equally absurd to say all is random, chaos, chance...none of which exist. All is imperfect order. Order requires intelligence. If all understanding ceased to exist, chaos would exist.

Intelligence has always existed, eternal, imagining, creating, but limited and imperfect. My logic is simple, based on observations completely void of logical fallacies, paradoxes, and impossible theories never to be resolved. I am not a member of any religion, but I can accept how I live on this smaller Earth scale then turn and apply it to the largest scale possible, Existence.

Let’s agree to disagree. People stand brainless, thoughtless, without any consciousness at all. You win. Makes perfect sense. Science is wrong however you argue on behalf of science, your prerogative. Science has never been wrong before, right? Time waster for me since it lacks the basic logic that equals existence. Causation. Without the idea of an eyelid, an eye, a puff of smoke, without those ideas, non-existence would be the actual rather than its antithesis existence. Everything is an idea, came from an idea, formed by intelligence, not necessarily any religious intelligence, simply intelligence...an intelligent energy which is one of a kind, eternal, imperfect, limited, etc. My philosophy is based off of observed reality, not all those never to be proven scientific theories which are pure numeric speculations not based on a limited nature(natural laws), not based on causation(but rather “magic”), not accounting for imperfections in any provable way(chaos is fantasy). What is imperfect order? Our 4-D dimension. Imperfect but all is ordered. Not incomprehensible.

He stated something that is factually not true, reflexes do not happen without a functioning brain. I pointed out the fact that functioning brains are needed for any action to occur. In my mind, all your examples refer to a dead frog having electrodes attached to it to make it move without a functioning brain, without a thought behind that functioning brain. You are going to have to give me better examples than that. Perhaps actions, standing, breathing, etc.,are the something coming from nothing completely detached from all reason, all causation. That’s your goalpost just so you understand. Ideas aren’t needed for intelligence and intelligence isn't needed for a complex system, nor is intelligence needed for interacting complex systems...unthinkable. lol

So neurobiology occurs without a brain? Without a functioning brain? Sure, stand without a functioning brain, see how long that lasts. Name one thing that is self-creating, ie created itself.

Ok basic logic. Creation(capital C) cannot create itself. Agreed? I am providing evidence in the form of simple logic. For instance, can you act, before you think? And thinking is not acting. My opening post works through the basic, beginning logic. If you do not understand that. One question only please in regards to your first stumbling block. Equal=identical no other=only one

I made assertions(a theory if this word is desired). As in all science, if you cannot prove my assertions false by whatever creative logic or experiments you can concoct, my assertions/theory remain true until proven false, right? Rather than getting hung up on a definition of mine that you clearly do not wish to accept as it is simple stated, let's move on to the prima facie- idea/s. All arose from an idea/s. All=Existence If you do not understand my logic, my only request is that upon your first stumbling block, ask one question before we get to the rest of the blocks. One specific question, please.

Prima Facie- an Idea/s All arose from an idea/s. Idea/s=intelligence=intelligent Creation Prove me wrong. "Just because" won't cut it.

Studiot wrote "If there is only one sort of singularity or even just one 'singularity' why does it need to be qualified by 'absolute' ?" The Absolute signals both eternal and immutable. Hmmm, physical was an oopsie. Yes, simply perceivable and observable stuff(not signifying physical per se). I am trying to define the difference between what is observed/perceived outside the mind from an idea/imagining solely existing in the mind. Better?

If there is another perceivable singularity, point it out. "And your argument seems to rest on the premise that no immaterial thing exists." Didn't I specify things using the words "perceivable" and "observable?" Is color perceivable? Is a shadow observable? My meaning of exist covers more than just what we observe or perceive in this 4 dimensional space. It is everything that is not an idea or imagining.