Creationism, presented logically and rationally

[Gabriel]

According to my rationale it seems you are unable of comprehension, meaning atheism promotes close-mindedness. No offense intended.

Let me try and explain even further.

Nothing is empty without being empty, otherwise it would have the property of being empty. Nothing has no properties. And if nothing has no properties then it is empty without being empty.
This is the opposite of existence and the beginning of everything. Existence became rising from it's opposite. Life became as Death passed away. The opposite of existence can be named Death just like existence can be named Life. Logical.
If something is not empty, it HAS TO contain something. Otherwise logic would not be present. Logic is present in everything, otherwise there would be no sense and a hand would not be a hand.
If something does not contain anything, it HAS TO be empty.
Is nothing empty? No. Does nothing contain anything? No.
Now we know what nothing is. It is not empty and does not contain anything. Is it true that nothing is empty without being empty? It does not contain anything, so it is empty. But is also not empty. And so, it is empty without being empty. It is true.
Emptiness gives way to further emptiness. Why? Because an empty space contains further empty spaces. One empty can contain infinite empties, I am sure you will agree. It is true.
Nothing is not empty as it is nothing. Nothing does not contain anything as well because it cannot contain. Nothing is empty because it couldn't contain and emptiness spreads infinitely. Nothing becomes empty without being empty because it is nothing. It is true. Now, nothing contains emptiness. Therefore it is empty.
I have proven that a nothing that isn't, cannot contain anything and isn't empty (Death, or lack of existence) becomes a nothing that is empty and contains emptiness. Containing emptiness is equal to not containing anything. And so nothing can be empty without being empty.
Empty becomes filled with empty. It stops being empty while staying empty. The empty within is not empty because it is filled with further nothing. Nothing is endless. Yet it still cannot contain. But, it contains. And so, the endless nothing contains something. And that something is an emptiness different and separate from nothing. Endless nothing is beside something that in the beginning was empty. But it became filled as it had the property of containing. It contained empties that became filled. Various nothings became things in what is essentially the mind of the first something.

Only idiots speak against something they don't understand. One has to try and understand and speak afterwards. No? I made no jumps between words, and God serves as much a purpose as the word hand. It was designed to classify something, and so there's no point in not using it. You are not me, it does not fit in with any rationality. You could be considered the same as me if we were talking about default humanity, BUT you would still vary from me. Was this what you meant?

God is an undefined variable. I am sorry, but that seems more like trolling - giving out false information and promoting chaotic thought to be precise.

[Scott Mayers]

According to my rationale it seems you are unable of comprehension, meaning atheism promotes close-mindedness. No offense intended.

Let me try and explain even further.

Nothing is empty without being empty, otherwise it would have the property of being empty. Nothing has no properties. And if nothing has no properties then it is empty without being empty.
This is the opposite of existence and the beginning of everything. Existence became rising from it's opposite. Life became as Death passed away. The opposite of existence can be named Death just like existence can be named Life. Logical.
If something is not empty, it HAS TO contain something. Otherwise logic would not be present. Logic is present in everything, otherwise there would be no sense and a hand would not be a hand.
If something does not contain anything, it HAS TO be empty.
Is nothing empty? No. Does nothing contain anything? No.
Now we know what nothing is. It is not empty and does not contain anything. Is it true that nothing is empty without being empty? It does not contain anything, so it is empty. But is also not empty. And so, it is empty without being empty. It is true.
Emptiness gives way to further emptiness. Why? Because an empty space contains further empty spaces. One empty can contain infinite empties, I am sure you will agree. It is true.

I already argue with a similar argument but definitely disagree with this last point on infinities.

Your own ignorance begins with assuming something about "atheism" that actually relates better to this than you think. "Atheism" means WITHOUT a Theistic interpretation about reality. NOTE TOO, by the way, that the word, "THeist", is an altered form of "Deist" which both derive from the meaning "two" or dual existence. The "Th" was no doubt added to aid in hiding the relation of this long ago. But it could also possibly be from the Catholic evolution of using a "Trinity" and where the word for "three" derives from "tree" (as a thingness quality) [See history of numbers and philosophy/religion for more on this].

The nature of an Atheism is not a DENIAL of what exists about some source, but to assume NOTHING prior to assuming a religiously biased COMPLEX entity you call "God" that spoils the investigation of reality by merely begging the associated historical entity of religious texts that emotes and loves and dictates what is or is not wrong, etc. So it is you who biases this up front when you cannot begin completely with sincerity by NOT introducing such magical terms. We could call the source, "Unicorn", or "Great Turtle", and these could technically count as useful LABELS for our purpose. But if I insisted on the label in a culture that treats these things as requiring proof, AND that these terms are BEGGING that we are going to prove their very existence, you don't say, "let's assume that Unicorn exist so that I can PROVE rationally why Unicorns exist". ???

To do so, you are correct by thinking about the MEANING of Nothing. I already agree that such a state is akin to your preferred word, "empty". Only I use different terms. If you start by asserting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, it BEGS itself for assuming it, just as I just criticized you for entering "God" into the fray. You are appropriately interpreting a nothing FROM something though. That is, only being a SOMETHING, we are biased to recognize that a NOTHING, especially an ABSOLUTE one, could NOT be true because we shouldn't be here to even notice. Yet we know that we can take away what was, like the word, "death", and equally apply this backwards, to before we existed. This is rational. But this only assures that SOME NOTHINGNESS exists.

THIS actually proves that if we assume SOMETHING (us being something to begin analysis), NOTHINGNESS does exist. OR...

From "1" --> "0" AND from "0" -->

This does not show that an ABSOLUTE ONE can be original though. Therefore all we CAN do thus far is to accept that where "1" is original, "0" has to be simultaneously true, correct?

But if ABSOLUTE ONE exists, then even some of what is NOT EVEN ONE in part exist. Therefore it cannot be the case that

From ABSOLUTE "1" --> "0"

But it is still possible the other way around, that from ABSOLUTE NOTHING, at least some ONE can follow. WHY?

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING FOR IT TO OBEY, as in 'laws' NOR some 'God's ' dictates to enable anything to follow. Even though we know that it is inconsistent from OUR perspective, it has no reason to 'obey' requiring some LAW of BEING inconsistent to break!! Thus, this lawless state allows anything to be true.

If anything follows, this means that 'at least ONE thing' follows, but does NOT specify WHAT that one thing requires being. So it could be TWO things or THREE or....INFINITE many things. Note too that as long as you assume nothing being one as well, these are TWO concepts. Then since this 'two-ness' exists, this plus the nothingness concept AND the oneness concept make THREE things exist. This is a 'set theory' type of formulation of every number based only on the EMPTY SET, by the way.

SO, we have established that from ABSOLUTE NOTHING derives ABSOLUTE NOTHING and ABSOLUTE SOMETHING and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, but NEVER can we begin from ABSOLUTE SOMETHING to derive ABSOLUTE NOTHING. All three extremes can exist but one cannot assume ABSOLUTE ONE thing, like some "God", for instance, could originate even itself!!

This leaves the nature of ABSOLUTE NOTHING (Nihilism) as the justified and logical cause of EACH AND EVERYTHING. Nor can you assume an infinity of things absolutely but demand an absolute ONE without absolute NOTHING to be 'true' either.

So we have
ABS 0 may cause ABS 1 in an ABS infinity of ways. [the contradiction is allowed because 'contradiction' is not denied from a source of nothingness, only where at least some law exists prior to nothing.]

Only idiots speak against something they don't understand. One has to try and understand and speak afterwards. No? I made no jumps between words, and God serves as much a purpose as the word hand. It was designed to classify something, and so there's no point in not using it. You are not me, it does not fit in with any rationality. You could be considered the same as me if we were talking about default humanity, BUT you would still vary from me. Was this what you meant?

God is an undefined variable. I am sorry, but that seems more like trolling - giving out false information and promoting chaotic thought to be precise.

And so these last opinions of yours do NOT stand. I accept that you are thinking on the right track. I mentioned how using "God" has severe baggage that even if you should interpret this as an atheist might interpret as a variable, you need to take even one step further back yourself to ask WHY you arrogantly assume something derogatory of the 'atheist'? Why, if you interpreted "God" as some variable would you then think that your reasoning somehow defeats the Atheists? Who are you trying to kid?

[Gabriel]

And so these last opinions of yours do NOT stand. I accept that you are thinking on the right track. I mentioned how using "God" has severe baggage that even if you should interpret this as an atheist might interpret as a variable, you need to take even one step further back yourself to ask WHY you arrogantly assume something derogatory of the 'atheist'? Why, if you interpreted "God" as some variable would you then think that your reasoning somehow defeats the Atheists? Who are you trying to kid?

God has no baggage because I created a philosophical writing. It is right to assume nothing to allow a more realistic observation to compare with other ones. I created a writing and the word God can have any meaning at all, connecting it with said baggage would be a mistake.

I do not believe I was arrogant. I believe it is the correct thing to do to become angry in response to witnessing anger, there is no loss of self or any other nonsense involved. If I hear arrogance I reply sarcastically, it is the logical way of continuing the present conversation.

I assume something derogatory of the atheist because atheism is from a more rational point of view, the sin of denying God and his existence. While everything we do is clearly an indirect gift from said being. My reasonings most definitely defeat the atheists for their logic and rationality is false as it a provisoric school of thought. Theism, or Simple Religion (Like Simple English), is a school of thought with a better foundation. A foundation that is logically correct, rational, contains no faults and is set in stone so to say.

What could it mean to kid someone? Is all of Earth my children now that I've written down an absolute truth? In a way, true. The entire universe, since we live through truths.

Do any of you realize, atheism is what allows something like the porno industry to exist? Would you disagree?

[Scott Mayers]

And so these last opinions of yours do NOT stand. I accept that you are thinking on the right track. I mentioned how using "God" has severe baggage that even if you should interpret this as an atheist might interpret as a variable, you need to take even one step further back yourself to ask WHY you arrogantly assume something derogatory of the 'atheist'? Why, if you interpreted "God" as some variable would you then think that your reasoning somehow defeats the Atheists? Who are you trying to kid?

God has no baggage because I created a philosophical writing. It is right to assume nothing to allow a more realistic observation to compare with other ones. I created a writing and the word God can have any meaning at all, connecting it with said baggage would be a mistake.

I do not believe I was arrogant. I believe it is the correct thing to do to become angry in response to witnessing anger, there is no loss of self or any other nonsense involved. If I hear arrogance I reply sarcastically, it is the logical way of continuing the present conversation.

I assume something derogatory of the atheist because atheism is from a more rational point of view, the sin of denying God and his existence. While everything we do is clearly an indirect gift from said being. My reasonings most definitely defeat the atheists for their logic and rationality is false as it a provisoric school of thought. Theism, or Simple Religion (Like Simple English), is a school of thought with a better foundation. A foundation that is logically correct, rational, contains no faults and is set in stone so to say.

What could it mean to kid someone? Is all of Earth my children now that I've written down an absolute truth? In a way, true. The entire universe, since we live through truths.

Do any of you realize, atheism is what allows something like the porno industry to exist? Would you disagree?

On the last up front, there is nothing 'wrong' with porno. As to "illegal porno", that's a different thing.

I haven't a clue what you're referencing about 'anger'?? I was responding without an emotional inflection in the least.

"Atheism" is the "lack of an assumption THAT any god, gods, or essences exist, in an environment of those who POSIT some such being along with some claimed history about our origins and our onus to it or it to us." You are NOT appropriately using a means to prove anything if you default to some PREMISE in argument(s) that others cannot initially agree to. Any logic that you begin with of premises that are indeterminate remain indeterminate in the conclusion. Because you are arguing AGAINST something you think is "Atheist" AND using the word "God" up front, you are unable to convince anyone of anything unless they already agree with your in-going assumptions.

Then there is still a problem with your logic because even if you assume something IS 'true' about some in-going premises, the conclusion must follow through to a conclusion that is SOUND (the premises CONNECT to that conclusion). You mention conclusions that do not even fit with WHAT you assume from the start.

If you do not understand this or can clarify what you mean better, I cannot understand you.

[Lacewing]

presented logically and rationally

According to you -- which does not make it logical or rational beyond yourself.

I can tell you a story

Yes, and that's all you're doing.

truths and facts

The things you imagine and make up do not equate to truths and facts.

Only idiots speak against something they don't understand.

So... speaking against something indicates a lack of understanding? Is this more of your rationale? Don't people speak against absolute nonsense because they intelligently realize it's nonsense?

You can believe whatever you want to, and find value for yourself in that. But telling others "how it is", and then calling them idiots for not believing/seeing as YOU do, is your own ego and delusion stroking itself.

And speaking of stroking... I'm guessing that theists (as the majority of the world's population) comprise the biggest audience for the porno industry, when many of them are not preaching to others "how it is" and "how to be". It's ignorant and deceitful to blame non-theists for anything.

[Conde Lucanor]

The creation myth is still the creation myth, no matter how elegantly it is described. Myths, by the way, have not always been considered lacking a logical, rational structure. Structural Anthropology made a successful case out of it.

[Gabriel]

It was my aim to present the creationist myth as a non-fiction story. This I accomplished. Which means what I wrote is not a myth. And so we have a school textbook creationism. In the form of a story, for easier comprehension.

Theists being in favour of an existing porn industry is a troll statement. It is obvious the industry is against a more reasonable family based lifestyle. Why this anti-family, anti-conservative if you will, agenda is being promoted on the World Wide Web? The modern, Galaxy-sized equivalent of the Alexandrian Library? You do note, a movie that showcases some things is not really a biologic class movie.

I have no idea why there is so much nonsense around theism and atheism. It is as simple as believing in the God I wrote of in my story or not - purest cuckoo nonsense.

[Conde Lucanor]

It was my aim to present the creationist myth as a non-fiction story. This I accomplished. Which means what I wrote is not a myth. And so we have a school textbook creationism. In the form of a story, for easier comprehension.

I disagree. The mythical nature of a text, its fictional character, has less to do with its formal structure, than with its content and meaning in relation to the world deemed as real. Surely, myths tend to have a particular narrative structure, but that's another issue, not dealt with in your story. It is no less fictional than your average myth.

[HexHammer]

OP is nothing but incoherent nonsense and babble!

[Gabriel]

OP is nothing but incoherent nonsense and babble!

The original lack of existence, nothing. It became filled with an infinitely expanding (within rather than outwards) waterfall of emptiness. Infinity is an INFORMATION, it is very different from emptiness which is similar to nothingness.

You see, nothing is. It contains emptiness. Emptiness starts to create more emptiness of various sizes, everything contained by nothing. Suddenly it also contains infinities. But more importantly, it contains infinity, an information. Nothing can tell between emptiness and something primally different from it, and so it can tell that it contains information. And so it can think. And it sees that there is an infinite infinitely empty space that it contains.

Nothing becomes aware that it is empty and is capable of understanding information. The beginning of Time and Life and Existence.

Thank you very much.

[Conde Lucanor]

The original lack of existence, nothing.

From a logical point of view, this is poorly constructed. You're playing with the word "existence" to work around the problem of the identity between "to exist" and "to be". The actual meaning of the sentence is: "everything that is not, is" or "everything that was not, was". This is evidently a contradiction: how can something be its opposite? It violates the three laws of logic: whatever is, is; nothing can both be and not be; everything must either be or not be".

It became filled...

For something to be filled, it first will need to be "something" and implies the condition of being a container, which relates to a spatial dimension. Can nothingness have a dimensional property? Of course not. It would be a "something".

... with an infinitely expanding (within rather than outwards) waterfall of emptiness.

The same problem as with "lack of existence".

You see, nothing is.

If it is, why it is called "nothing"?

It contains emptiness.

Contradictory statement, again.

Emptiness starts to create more emptiness of various sizes, everything contained by nothing. Suddenly it also contains infinities. But more importantly, it contains infinity, an information. Nothing can tell between emptiness and something primally different from it, and so it can tell that it contains information. And so it can think. And it sees that there is an infinite infinitely empty space that it contains.

Absolutely ridiculous, for the same reasons said above.

[thedoc]

Creationism is neither logical nor rational, it's mostly word salad.

[TSBU]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS9QpqhxBA0
Jesusaurus rex XD