Is everything physical?

yeah, except ghosts

are you applying this universe's laws of physics to whatever reality was before this universe existed

If one considers the physical world to be the three spatial and one temporal dimension which a human being can experience the world in, most certainly not. Even if one allows for the nine total spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension which string theory call for I don't think 'physical' would be an accurate descriptor for the phenomena that occur in the six higher spaces.

Whether one chooses to believe in string theory's explanation of these higher dimensions or not, my personal conviction is that there exists some sort of aphysical realm adjoint to our own wherein one's consciousness, as well as other four-dimensionally inexplicable phenomena such as quantum entanglement, dark matter, and dark energy find their origins. The laws by which this realm is governed may or may not be deterministic (one could never create a test to discover this either), but I suspect the behaviours of entities in this noumenal world manifest what one might call 'free will,' namely the ability to act on the universe in a free way uninfluenced by previous states of the universe.

tl;dr: no

Okay smarty pants explain yourself. How could anything not be physical?

Believing that just because everyone can't sense the same qualia means the quaila has a different essence makes you a pleb.

Woah, dude. What if like, those dimensions run tangent to ours but like, as a web you know? What if at the highest dimension it's all one and like, all our information comes from here. So using this unifying realm of the higher planer conscious collective we could communicate beyond physical means? If you take enough acid you'll know what I mean.

In mathematics the dimension of a space is defined by the number of linearly independent vectors which are required to create a basis for it, meaning in more lay terms the number of perpendicular arrows one could construct without having any be parallel. It is not too difficult to conceive of a infinite-dimensional space wherein the (infinitely great) number of vectors required to define it would result in all of those vectors being themselves parallel to each other. Just a circle has an infinite number of vertices where, despite not overlapping with each other, they appear contiguous, so too might higher dimensional structures display similar emergent properties.

Supposing I were living my life as a point on the outside of this circle, and could only communicate with the points adjacent to myself, it would appear to us as though we lived on a one-dimensional line. If it were possible for me to observe and utilize the circle's intrinsic geometries to then communicate to a point which lies 'across' the circle, it would indeed seem as though I were breaking the laws of circle-universe. However, because there are infinitely many points along its circumference, I am just as much adjacent to the point across the diameter as I am the ones 'next to' me; I am not actually adjacent to any of them, and therefore I am adjacent to all of them.

It then becomes possible through the extension of this thought experiment to understand a form of aphysical communication across this noumenal realm, and while we as humans may never acquire the understanding of our figurative circle, it nonetheless presents an intriguing mode of inquiry.

Pic somewhat related; Lineland in flatland, to the point-people may as well be a circle. It is only through a two-dimensional observation of it that one can understand it as a line.

I've seen that movie so I get your point. But just because you are not parallel to something doesn't mean you aren't adjacent to it, right? Even if technically those words meant the same thing, and that's your logic, you are still closer to the point in front or behind you than the one across the circle seeing the circle from the second dimension. It depends on your perspective. You can't just say you are adjacent to all and none.

The point that I attempted to make (although in rereading not so explicitly) was this: Due to the infinitude of the circle's vertices, it does not make sense to call one adjacent to another at all, and so therefore the limitation preventing one's communication is completely arbitrary; merely a construct of the mind stemming from a lack of understanding of the universe in which one resides. Similarly if one were to gain an understanding of our own universe that carried similar geometries, one might be able to erode the barriers preventing the communication of information across the four dimensions we experience.

...

There are hundreds of miles of space between atoms so no

Your girlfriend isn't

How does non-materialism escape that problem?
By having God create everything? But that is not a beginning of everything, because God was there already and God is something.
So did God have no beginning? Then there was no beginning. But "no beginning" is also an option for materialists.
So regardless of materialism or non-materialism, if there was a beginning, everything came from nothing without anything happening.

God is the first, unmoved mover.
Before everything and after everything is God.

Does this answer your question?

If one were to consider the possibility that a.) OP has a girlfriend or b.) OP only has a girlfriend in his imagination, a materialist would argue that in either case OP's girlfriend is a physical entity in the universe. From the perspective of a materialist, even one's thoughts are physical phenomena, explained through the interactions among chemicals or atoms in the brain. Seeing as OP can only conceive of his girlfriend in a thought, and not actually experience or confirm her physical presence in the universe due to his observation of her being similarly reported to him by thoughts in his brain (whether she exists in it or not), it must then be the case that even if his girlfriend is a figment of his imagination, she is a physical element of the universe.

I, as you, do not believe this is the case; more pointedly, materialism does not offer the possibility of non-physical existence no matter what, but we can clearly understand OP does not in fact have a physical girlfriend, and is a faggot.

existential comics is gutter trash
can't draw for shit
has the most superficial understanding of philosophy
"jokes" are just hamfisted references

and I have to see this shit all over the place because other philosophy grad students are so desperate and autistic that they go over the moon when someone panders to them

Why do you think that this "nothing" ever existed? B/c Nietzsche told you?

Even if one chooses not to believe in G-d, one could conceive of the creation of the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension in which we experience the universe as having been created in a higher dimensional space. If the phenomena governing this space posses the quality of 'free will,' then it is certainly possible that there are things in the perceived universe under the influence of these free will entities and therefore have what one might rightly perceive as non-physical origins.

No lol, because there simply is something. And we also know definitively that this material universe is not eternal. And we kinda know about it's creation too

That implies a state before this. That state, to materialists, is "nothing"

Also, to address an important point before anyone responds, one could continue this process of free will entities creating every lower order universe, including the ones in which the original free will entities reside ad infinitum.

This being just as faithful as a belief in G-d, it becomes more appropriate to foster either a cyclic view of universe-creation, or one wherein free will entities have the potentiality to create, recreate, or preserve their own domains. To me the more appealing is the cyclic, as without a conception of linear temporal axis, cyclic is more rich and meaningful in that time as we understand it is completely absent.

It's a special kind of nothing though, it's not that there was empty space, there was no space at all. What does that mean? I don't really know, but it doesn't seem reasonable to assume it worked exactly like empty space works, which is what you're doing when you make this "how could something come from nothing" argument.

Not at all, reread my post. I don't know how I could make it clearer.

Indeed a "special kind of nothing" is appropriate in discussion of a pre-physical realm. Even the verbage 'before the universe' relies on our understanding of a concept of before, which, as far as we can test, only exists within our universe. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume either an "eternal" universe -- one that is not necessarily material in our four dimensions, mind -- or a supra-universe in which our universe resides that is also beyond material explanation.

Maybe it is eternal; maybe before the radical expansion that we call the big Bang, there was a radical contraction, etc., Ad infinitum.

Lol, this

Every "thing" comes from something.
No matter how far you go everything comes from something, including your "no space"

God has no beginning. He always has existed. He was not created.

We're still incredibly limited scientifically. How could anyone that isn't supremely arrogant assume to know every secret of the universe? Perhaps ultimately everything is physical, but yet is so complex that it may as well not be. Everything is unknown.

And how did that ad infinitum universe come to be?

Or it is just out of randomness being random and there existing something instead of nothing?

>one could conceive of the creation of the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension in which we experience the universe as having been created in a higher dimensional space
That does not matter at all to what I said.
That higher dimensional space would be something that exists.
We are talking about the beginning of existence itself, of everything, of there being something, of there being anything at all.
Call this "The Beginning".
God's act of creation cannot be The Beginning, obviously, because God exists when he creates.
So either The Beginning was the beginning of God's own existence, or of whatever began His existence, or of whatever began the existence of whatever began God's existence, etc.; or there was no Beginning.
Either way, if you believe in The Beginning, it is logically impossible to deny that it was from nothing. The Beginning is from nothing by absolute necessity, because the only other option is that it would be from something, in which case it would of course not be The Beginning.

Also forgot to say, everything else does have a beginning. Creation has a beginning. The Creator, is God.

Then there was no beginning to existence.
Read this:

>hey literature enthusiast can you give a philosohpical anws er xDDD??? its not like you just read books for hobbits &(and) i know theres a board dedicate to philosophikal themes, yes, i just want to know you are answer to this philosophical theme hehe :) XDDDDD btw i like /pol/"

God exists 100% outside of The Beginning.

Before The Beginning, was God.
After The End, will be God.

See the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas if you want to know how it works. Search for his "5 proofs"

Steven Hawking once said something like
>given that there is a law such as gravity, a universe can and will create itself from nothingness
I cant even...

Everything is mind.

I remember. He said he doesn't believe in god because of this.

What I mean to say (being the person there quoted) was that the universe that we exist in, our 3+t dimensions, could easily have their Beginning without necessitating a beginning of higher order. Easily reconciled with either a notion of God or lack thereof.

What created gravity?
What creates the possible dimensions or whatever where gravity has an effect?

And anyway, gravity being a law has already been thought to be wrong. In particular check out Eric Verlinde's theory. He says gravity arises as part of quantum fluctuations. A whole lot more, too. His view of the universe is getting closer.

A beginning of 4-dimensional spacetime from some n-dimensional spacetime is not the beginning of everything.

I know the five ways. They do not address this.
Everything can only begin from nothing, because other than everything there is not anything. If God exists, He is part of everything (otherwise he is obviously nothing, i.e. not something that exists).

There is no reason, however, that the n-dimensional space must have a beginning. It is clearly not a part of the physical "everything" of our universe. I merely suggest that one can easily reconcile both a.) There exists a G-d who created our universe and b.) The realm in which G-d exists needn't have itself had a beginning -- nowhere in the Bible nor in logic is this a conclusion made.

>one can easily reconcile both a.) There exists a G-d who created our universe and b.) The realm in which G-d exists needn't have itself had a beginning -- nowhere in the Bible nor in logic is this a conclusion made.
I agree.

>t. brainlet

I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what has been trying to get you to say for a while. The point is that this problem looks exactly the same whether you believe in god or not.

Ebin Veeky Forums meme pal :^) I bet you're IQ is 160

Really just understand Aquinas' proofs. All of my answers to your current questions can be easily explained there.

If you still have a counterargument to his proofs after having thoroughly understood what he meant then you are the first.

Protip: neither my view nor your view can be proved for the masses. Not in this world. Such are the laws of reality. The proof you seek lies within. No one can tell you, others can only guide you.

My only problem is that I don't see a problem with G-d being either an entity in or name for the non-physical, eternal realm from which our physical, finite universe is created.

read Kant

>beyond doubt
That language is a little strong, especially for a consciousness drifting through nothingness.

Don't be lowballing me, kiddo.

Which ones do you like? The argument from contingency is clearly no longer relevant to the scientific world view, so fortunately before any discussion we're already down to no more than 4.

Read someone who came after Kant

Okay, last try.

Look at this picture.

The circle represents everything, all that exists, everything at all.

I now ask you to point out where God is in that picture.

Fuckery

Not a problem. My only point was that either existence began from nothing, or existence never began. Because if existence began but not from nothing, then it was not the beginning of existence. And neither God nor materialism changes this.

Start by contingency then. Prove that existence can just go "on/off" out of non-existence forever and ever.

The big bang is said to have been caused by quantum fluctuations or whatever. The non-space "space" through which those quantum fluctuations occured is also something, as it exists if something came from it.

Excuse me? Are you the Aquinas guy?

I really hate to be the scientismist(?) here, but because we're already mixing the falsifiable with the un-, I'll do it anyways
The discovery of quantum mechanics is drastically shaking the foundations of what we know to be the truths of physics. The proofs concerning the unmoved mover and the first cause are jeopardized by that.

The argument from contingency relies on the assumption that a universe with a beginning MUST have been created by God, so the argument only makes sense if you already agree coming into it.

The argument from degree is simply foolish and can easily be explained by humans working in self interest. The goodness itself that morals are compared to is really "this makes me happy" and the opposite, "this makes me sad." Hence differing moralities from various people and cultures.

Finally, the teleological argument assumes that laws of physics can not possibly be inherent and must have been designed. Even if that is true, the argument again relies on an agreement before the debate even starts

I'm not at all trying to disprove the existence of God, just the idea that God is the ONLY explanation to why we exist. That is an unfalsifiable field, here meaning religion (being unfalsifiable does not mean void of merit to me, it just means that the scientific method can not and should not be applied to it) sticking its nose into a falsifiable field, here meaning science, which I am very against, although I am not against religion in the slightest.

This is a screenshot of my phone.

In this analogy, God is the one viewing this image.

Lemme axe you dis: if i can't seez it, how can it be?

By the way, I am but a simple layman peasant and I have never even read any criticisms of the five proofs. This is just me giving my thoughts on each one. I am sure smarter men than myself have given this more thought

Apologies for any confusion my device-switching causes in this discussion, for context I am
With that out of the way, I'll address >The circle represents everything, all that exists, everything at all.

It is improper to conceive of an everything to begin with, because even something so basic as the state of 'being' itself is something only contextualized through our own understanding of the universe in which we live. If I suppose there "exists" a noumenal realm adjoint to our own, it is automatically given dimension and time similar to those we experience.

However, if I hypothesize merely the influence such a realm has on our own, I arrive at something not too unlike .

God is the red in this poorly drawn image.

And He is also smiling.

Atheist here

Stupid fucking argument and you should be ashamed

Dude, you are the densest motherfucker I have ever tried to communicate with in the history of my life.
I was just thinking about this and you are worse to argue with than a brick wall, because at least a brick wall does not answer back with the most obtuse misunderstandings imaginable.
I have no idea what it is about my argument that you don't understand. It's in a way the simplest argument I have ever tried to make anybody understand. I cannot believe that you are a real human being who knows how to live and breathe and eat but is unable to understand this argument.

Like some other anons said itt, neither of us can neither prove our point nor disprove the others' point.

As much as you are inviting me to let your points prove mine wrong, so am I doing the same. But I can tell you I've already been where you are.

what the fuck are you talking about you complete and utter idiot

Atheism is just as faithful as belief in G-d, if you mean the sense that there is only the universe in which we live (in its four dimensions) and no external influence.

This necessitates the eternity of our perceived universe, which although not implausible, seems unlikely. To be completely honest, it is implausible even to suggest that our 3+t-d universe has no external factors influencing it, as we observe quantum entanglement and other such phenomena that act outside of these confines.

The existence of the circle and rotational motion is in fact perfect evidence of the unmoved mover. For any other kind of motion cannot be continuous and eternal, which a primary motion must be if we are to avoid the inference that all motion is accidental, which would allow for the logical possibility that all motion can cease. This is impossible, for if all motion ceases to be then so does time, both of which must be continuous. Rectilinear motion entertains contrary motions simultaneously if it is to be continuous, so the only true and eternal kind of motion is that which rotates. The circle is the prime mover

is friday physical? is meaning?

You just keep fucking doing it. It's incredible. I had a schizophrenic friend once, and even he was easier to communicate with than you, and he was the stupidest and craziest person I've ever known. I'm in a state of total disbelief.

I'm an agnostic atheist though, not a gnostic

I do not believe in god, but I do not believe that no god exists for certain. I have yet to feel God. Once I do I will gladly become religious

Underrated post

>fucking kill me right now please

okay, I remade it to help your misunderstanding

You see, the shape of the polygon is not really important to the illustration

Now in this image can you tell me where you would think God goes?

y-you're not going to mock me?

>Rectilinear motion entertains contrary motions simultaneously if it is to be continuous, so the only true and eternal kind of motion is that which rotates.

I'm making this a copypasta.

you are the dumbest boy alive

I love you

we can even draw a smiley :))) face .)):) on it if that helps you
with God all things are possible

>Rectilinear motion entertains contrary motions simultaneously
That's literally the opposite, a circle implies contrary motions simultaneously, a rectangle implies contrary motions in turn

Also, e^x just goes.

Another propositioning of G-d, one which is far more appealing to me, is that He is the border which separates that which exists from that which does not, i.e. he is the polygon's border, for however hard one might try he cannot contain or classify existence in such a manner without this border.

Not him but I want to see a response to this. This discussion is getting interesting.

Now, I know this is difficult to follow.

But the idea is that if you put God inside the shape, then that means God exists (good!) but it also means that God is part of everything there is (oh no!).

But if you DON'T put God inside the shape, then that means God doesn't exist. Oops!

That's actually not true. I can easily say, I'm thinking of every integer between zero and two that isn't two.

Now I don't need to invoke two to tell you I'm thinking of zero and one.

this should help you understand, I made this for you:

Ah, but the metaphysics are not an integral matter, but one of the reals. I can say to you that I think only of the real numbers between zero and one, and you cannot name me all that I conceive without both zero and one.

The issue is that you have the right argument, but not the right debate. This doesn't work to disprove the existence of God, but it does raise interesting questions about creationism and God's relationship to the physical world

>This doesn't work to disprove the existence of God
no, it proves this:

But the point is that I don't need zero and one to be in the set (which by analogy is existence)

Or how did you want to actually use your definition of god? Are you actually going to make him a closed contour in space, or does something more spiritual go in your set?

I believe in scientism but I do not do science professionally. What does that make me? A "scientist"?