I will debate two competing world views (and by world I mean
everything that exists in this physical world). This diatribe is not
meant to address theories that constitute some other form of existence
other then the physical one.

My initial point of argument is that something has to be eternal (had
no beginning). Either our world is eternal or the thing/process that
created it is. This would be in contrast to the idea that our world
suddenly started with no outside stimuli. I discount this point of
view because there is no evidence to support it and it is
scientifically impossible (in any test environment we cannot create
something from nothing).

So given this as a starting point, I will discuss the first option -
that our world is eternal.

My theory that I will attempt to prove is that if our world is eternal
than our existence has no meaning - I know I'm a bright and cheery
guy.

It may be. I was thinking of this while playing basketball, so I may
have had some flaws in my logic. However, what are those mistakes?
Are you saying it contains mistakes because you disagree with the
outcome or based off of some criteria?

Joseph Campbell & Marija Gimbutas reconstructed the original Aryan
cosmology from clues in Proto-Indo-European and snippets of myth
retained in obscure rural villages. Chaos was 1st. But as we now know,
you cannot iterate random numbers forever without a self replicating
sequence, in this case Gaia, showing up.

And of course, iteration does not go on forever without random errors
producing what we now call 'evolution'. So, Gaia *evolved* to achieve
sentience. At this point She differentiated Herself from Chaos,
creating physical reality, "Maya". Some of the earliest, Chalcolithic
iconography, shows Gaia, Maya, & Chaos dancing. The *original*
Trinity.

The dance still goes on. Whether it began 15 billion years ago, or
merely this morning, presenting the pattern of energy seen in the sky
that merely looks like its been there 15 billion years does not really
matter.

Hummmm, not sure I know any of this (or even what you are talking
about).

On Aug 28, 12:08 am, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

And that "thing" is obviously not your argument, you're weird.

If your entire argument requires "an initial point", so as to come
into existence and be sensed by man, then by what reasoning do you
deny there also had to have been an "initial point" - "a beginning" of
the universe, so as to come into existence and be sensed by man?

With this diatribe of yours, are you trying to place your god as
having now first existed within the universe, that it supposedly
created, because there could have been no place for it to exist
without a universe for it to exist in?

That is a sign of rational thinking BTW, but you've still got a long
way to go.

Or

Is yours, as it appears, the silly Kantian POC argument, that the
first man's (that's you) your first bit of knowledge exists, e.g. of
your god, in your head before your senses can first sense (initiate)
what your first bit of knowledge of god is about?

On Aug 28, 12:34 am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

Hey dopey, read my lips, time is in the universe, the univserse is not
in time.

Michael Gordge

On Aug 27, 2:53 pm, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

MichaelNJ@gmail.com wrote:

In the first paragraph you state that you are talking about "everything
that exists in the physical world" not anything that "constitute[s] some
other form of existence." In the second paragraph, you postulate, as a
possible theory, a "thing/process" that exists and created everything
that exists in the physical world. If this thing/process exists, then it
too is part of the physical world. A think/process cannot create itself,
therefore it cannot possibly exist.

It is a major stumbling block that opens all sorts of doors even for very
rational minds.
And key point I think in this thread. How can 'something' come from
'nothing'? Any takers?