Darwin's theory

Defender OF Faith

SW wrote: »

Do you believe every god/goddess from every culture exists? If not, what is your reason for not doing so?

That goes back to my point at least they believed in some sort of a god; and didn't reject his existence. If your read, throughout history and ancient civilisation each had some sort of god or higher creator they worshipped. I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles. But leaving all religion creationism & Darwinism I cant seem to find nor the atheist him self can find a Logical or a rational reason why a god does or should not exists.

Delirium

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

That goes back to my point at least they believed in some sort of a god; and didn't reject his existence. If your read, throughout history and ancient civilisation each had some sort of god or higher creator they worshipped. I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles. But leaving all religion creationism & Darwinism I cant seem to find nor the atheist him self can find a Logical or a rational reason why a god does or should not exists.

that doesn't answer my question. You said that a person needs a good reason to not believe in a god. I asked what are yours for not believing in the majority of gods (presuming you're Christian/Jewish/Muslim).

would you like to give your reason(s)?

floggg

J C wrote: »

My mouth and my cheek are separate and independent organs!!!:)

I dot believe either are organs.

Again, I think it might be a good time to remind us of yoir scientific qualifications. Im going to assume it's not biology.

kingchess

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

That goes back to my point at least they believed in some sort of a god; and didn't reject his existence. If your read, throughout history and ancient civilisation each had some sort of god or higher creator they worshipped. I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles. But leaving all religion creationism & Darwinism I cant seem to find nor the atheist him self can find a Logical or a rational reason why a god does or should not exists.

The same God??Moloch was the same as Yaheh??or Odin?what about the Aztec gods ??the Hindu gods of TODAY?? the countless Gods who have been worshiped thru out history?., The answer is that I believe in ONE LESS GOD than you do,

floggg

J C wrote: »

The author was recording the Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... just like He recorded the murder of Abel by Cain ... the Fall of Adam and Eve ... none of which He agreed with.

So when writing his holy book which his followers were to follow for all eternity, God (being the sole author according to you) felt compelled to include numerous barbaric rules supposedly made in his name, even though he personally disagreed with them. Further, he inserted no direct or explicit disclaimer of said provisions nor did he subsequently send any messenger to do so - even though (as an all seeing all powerful god) he would presumably be able to see by including those passages he would obviously be seen to be sanctioning numerous barbaric acts which relied upon them for justification.

Did I get that right?

To my mind, he bears a lot of responsibility for each barbaric act ever inspired by those passages.

And if that nonsense is true, can you please tell me where in the bible it says he disagrees with those laws. I would assume there would be a very clear statement - not just an inference or something open to interpretation.

As I presumably humble servant of your lord you, you wouldn't dare to presume how he thinks without clear scriptural authority, would you?

Defender OF Faith

SW wrote: »

that doesn't answer my question. You said that a person needs a good reason to not believe in a god. I asked what are yours for not believing in the majority of gods (presuming you're Christian/Jewish/Muslim).

would you like to give your reason(s)?

I think I answered you already:
"I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles."
Because from a logical and a rational point of view it does not make sense for their to be more then one God, those societies and civilisations believed that some sort of a God exist and gave him names like Zeus, Hades,Mars and Athens. I simply believe that all of those gods they believed in fact just one god.

I don't think that a person needs a good reason not to believe in a god he's free to believe what he want, I simply think that it's a more logical and a rational to believe in a god and I cant see how that should conflicts with your intellect, science may conflict with religion but I cant see how can it conflicts with the concept of god.

kingchess wrote: »

The same God??Moloch was the same as Yaheh??or Odin?what about the Aztec gods ??the Hindu gods of TODAY?? the countless Gods who have been worshiped thru out history?., The answer is that I believe in ONE LESS GOD than you do,

Different names that support the same premise, for example Odin and Mars are the same the Norse believed he's the God of war and called him Odin & the Romans believed he's the God of war and called him Mars.
I simply believe that instead of having 5 or 6 different gods having control over different aspect of this world one god controls what all these gods together control because it's more logical easier and simpler to believe.

Thargor

What's your evidence for this God that makes it so logical that one exists?

Delirium

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think I answered you already:
"I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles."
Because from a logical and a rational point of view it does not make sense for their to be more then one God, those societies and civilisations believed that some sort of a God exist and gave him names like Zeus, Hades,Mars and Athens. I simply believe that all of those gods they believed in fact just one god.

That doesn't make much sense other that as a personal preference for chosen deity. Just saying "I think it's more likely that one, rather than multiple, entity created the universe and humanity".

And that's before you get past why it makes more sense for their to be a god rather than not.

I don't think that a person needs a good reason not to believe in a god he's free to believe what he want, I simply think that it's a more logical and a rational to believe in a god and I cant see how that should conflicts with your intellect, science may conflict with religion but I cant see how can it conflicts with the concept of god.

I would disagree. I don't think it's rational to accept the existence of reality creating deity, when we have no evidence to support it. People can believe what they want but that doesn't mean that it's rational.

Wibbs

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I simply believe that instead of having 5 or 6 different gods having control over different aspect of this world one god controls what all these gods together control because it's more logical easier and simpler to believe.

It's only "logical" in retrospect. Monotheism is quite the "new" thing. For the vast majority of human history and culture many gods/spirits were the order of the day. Judaism itself evolved from many gods to one. In the early days other gods were assumed to exist, but they were lesser to the top god. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", you'll note it doesn't say there are no other gods.

floggg

J C wrote: »

Good point.

I'm sorry if I don't match your high expectations ... but all I can do is present the 'cutting edge' science on the matter at hand.

If that's not enough, I can only apologise.

Oh, good. And when will you get around to providing said cutting edge science.

Or even just science?

floggg

J C wrote: »

He did ... but that wasn't the point ... the tree was in full leaf and wasn't bearing any fruit ... even unripened fruit.

... so it was useless as a fig tree (by not providing food for people to eat) ... and it therefore was selected by Jesus to be destroyed.

I think you were missing the point.

If Jesús created and designed fog trees, then he designed it not to bear fruit in that season.

So the only one to blame for the lack of figs is Jesús himself.

Roger Hassenforder

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Because from a logical and a rational point of view it does not make sense for their to be more then zero god(s).

FYP.

Whats your rational or logical reason there is a god, other then a faith based reason?

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

And why don't you believe in a God? can you give me a good reason why? I understand if you don't believe in religion, but I dont understand how can people reject the belief in god if they dont have a good reason for it

For the same reason I don't believe in Sauron - ni matter how well written the book is, there is zero credible objectively verifiable evidence in support of his existence.

Pretty reasonable position, no?

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think I answered you already:
"I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles."
Because from a logical and a rational point of view it does not make sense for their to be more then one God, those societies and civilisations believed that some sort of a God exist and gave him names like Zeus, Hades,Mars and Athens. I simply believe that all of those gods they believed in fact just one god.

I don't think that a person needs a good reason not to believe in a god he's free to believe what he want, I simply think that it's a more logical and a rational to believe in a god and I cant see how that should conflicts with your intellect, science may conflict with religion but I cant see how can it conflicts with the concept of god.


Different names that support the same premise, for example Odin and Mars are the same the Norse believed he's the God of war and called him Odin & the Romans believed he's the God of war and called him Mars.
I simply believe that instead of having 5 or 6 different gods having control over different aspect of this world one god controls what all these gods together control because it's more logical easier and simpler to believe.

Lol.

From a rational and logical point of view, a pantheon of gods is just as likely as there being one single God.

In fact, a pantheon of gods would at least explain the inconsistency between all the actions, events and emotions attributed to deities.

There is little logic in a loving forgiving God who drowns the entire human population in a flood, save for one family who must inbreed to repopulate the earth.

Pherekydes

floggg wrote: »

For the same reason I don't believe in Sauron - ni matter how well written the book is, there is zero credible objectively verifiable evidence in support of his existence.

Pretty reasonable position, no?

Ridiculous! We saw Sauron at the start and then that big eye thingy...






















More evidence than for JC's god anyway...

floggg

Since J C loves math games so much, can any number crunchers come up with a rough analysis if whether it would be possible to go from Noah's family to today's population (bearing in mind stuff like infant and maternal mortality rates, lack of medical care, etc.

According to this website, the flood supposedly happened 4000 years ago - http://creation.mobi/the-date-of-noahs-flood

Is 4000 years enough to go from five or six people to 7 billion?

Defender OF Faith

SW wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense other that as a personal preference for chosen deity. Just saying "I think it's more likely that one, rather than multiple, entity created the universe and humanity".

It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god.

SW wrote: »

And that's before you get past why it makes more sense for their to be a god rather than not.


I would disagree. I don't think it's rational to accept the existence of reality creating deity, when we have no evidence to support it. People can believe what they want but that doesn't mean that it's rational.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

FYP.

Whats your rational or logical reason there is a god, other then a faith based reason?

The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence.

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.

When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death.
When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men.
Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention.
We have however two options regarding these individuals

#1)They were dishonest people and mad men
#2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for

If the first was true then they would not have risen to the importance they have risen to, and history does not celebrate mad men, otherwise we would not be able to recognise our own intelligence as we would say "Human recognise and celebrate mad men"

If we assume that they were deceiving then we are saying that the collective judgement of individuals, who celebrated such people as the best in their communities over time was not a good one.
This would cast an aspersion over our own ability to judge, as we would celebrate righteous individuals where in fact our own judgement to who's righteous or not cant be dependable,as The people that would come after us will say our judgement was not dependable and we were deceived.

It makes more sense that these individuals were in fact honest and were portraying the real experiences that they had. God spoken to them and gave them a message to give us.

These are just two good reasons for thinking that god exist now what reason do you have for thinking that god does not exist?

Dan_Solo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

The belief in god doesn't require evidence

Speak for yourself mate.

housetypeb

One could say that belief in gods evolved,our early ancestors conjured up gods to explain things they didn't understand,like thunder etc.
Over time they invested all the powers from many local gods into one supreme god, doesn't make it true though.

Defender OF Faith

housetypeb wrote: »

One could say that belief in gods evolved,our early ancestors conjured up gods to explain things they didn't understand,like thunder etc.
Over time they invested all the powers from many local gods into one supreme god, doesn't make it true though.

This is called a genetic fallacy which is an illogical argument against an idea based on the origin of the idea, our early ancestors believed in god to explain what they couldn't understand and overtime they came to believe in one god (origin) hence it's not true (conclusion) I wrote a post earlier on how a believe in god is a rational belief and that there are really no good reason as to why he doesn't exist which I invite you to read if your looking to have a beneficial discussion that we both might benefit from.

Ignoring all these trolls at the bottom that cant think of writing a logical articulated response to the points at hand and resort to writing comments such as these instead:

floggg wrote: »

For the same reason I don't believe in Sauron - ni matter how well written the book is, there is zero credible objectively verifiable evidence in support of his existence.

Pretty reasonable position, no?

floggg wrote: »

Lol.

From a rational and logical point of view, a pantheon of gods is just as likely as there being one single God.

In fact, a pantheon of gods would at least explain the inconsistency between all the actions, events and emotions attributed to deities.

There is little logic in a loving forgiving God who drowns the entire human population in a flood, save for one family who must inbreed to repopulate the earth.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yptXkLglKkA

Edit: To clarify a bit, there is literally no point whatsoever using a logical argument against 'You can't have something from nothing, except when it fits my argument'.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Speak for yourself mate.

Bipolar Joe

I genuinely do like to have conversations about this stuff, but when your argument is "X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!" I know you're not the droid I'm looking for. The idea that one God is more logical than more than one because more than one would mean he needed help is also a leap in logic. I have more pairs of pants than one. That does not mean my pants need help.



We call that one a "Strawman." It got popular there recently.

catallus

That the wisdom that comes to us through the awful grace of God is rejected by so many who are blinded by the splendour of his creation is ironic.

Defender OF Faith

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I genuinely do like to have conversations about this stuff, but when your argument is "X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!" I know you're not the droid I'm looking for. The idea that one God is more logical than more than one because more than one would mean he needed help is also a leap in logic. I have more pairs of pants than one. That does not mean my pants need help.



We call that one a "Strawman." It got popular there recently.

ah I think you missed when I said
"Having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god"
an all powerful being that require not the help of anyone. So it's not more logical to have one god then many otherwise it would contradict the very definition of a god which states
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
such being is powerful enough to do everything himself without the help of other gods.

Can you also explain to me what do you mean by saying:
""X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!"
Since i cant understand how what I wrote below correspond with such an argument.
"the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I also want to make it clear that am not looking for a debate or an argument but rather a discussion to see whether the belief in a god is rational or not, since the psychology of a debate is like a sports competition, and no one likes to lose. So even if you make a good point, the other person isn't going to congratulate you. They are thinking about revenge.

Delirium

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

ah I think you missed when I said
"Having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god"
an all powerful being that require not the help of anyone. So it's not more logical to have one god then many otherwise it would contradict the very definition of a god which states
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
such being is powerful enough to do everything himself without the help of other gods.
.

That's the definition of the Christian god, not a god, so that's not an argument against multiple gods.

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

We're not making a logical argument because you aren't either. Your entire argument falls apart logically when you make claims like 'nothing comes from nothing except when I say it does'. To accuse others of using fallacious arguments when your premise is based on a fallacy is ridiculous.

I stopped reading here since you clearly demonstrated your short attention span and inability to read with understanding since I clearly said
" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."
Read again and tell me where did i say that?

Squeedily Spooch

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god.



The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence.

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.

You're saying it's irrational to believe something can come from nothing, yet it's totally logical a god can just magic themselves into existence, aka come from nothing. Right.

It might make more sense to YOU that there's one all powerful creator of everything (who doesn't know when fig trees are in season), to me that makes less sense than the idea we just happened through a right place right time scenario. Is that so terrfying, that we're here by beautiful chance and not on purpose? There's a humility to that, I don't think the world was created for me nor do I think or hope there's an eternity of forced worship awaiting me after I kick the bucket, that is utterly petrifiying to me.

If you're happy to spend eternity in an abusive relationship you can't escape, more power to you, I'll take blissful unawareness.

Grayson

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god.



The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence.

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.

When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death.
When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men.
Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention.
We have however two options regarding these individuals

#1)They were dishonest people and mad men
#2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for

If the first was true then they would not have risen to the importance they have risen to, and history does not celebrate mad men, otherwise we would not be able to recognise our own intelligence as we would say "Human recognise and celebrate mad men"

If we assume that they were deceiving then we are saying that the collective judgement of individuals, who celebrated such people as the best in their communities over time was not a good one.
This would cast an aspersion over our own ability to judge, as we would celebrate righteous individuals where in fact our own judgement to who's righteous or not cant be dependable,as The people that would come after us will say our judgement was not dependable and we were deceived.

It makes more sense that these individuals were in fact honest and were portraying the real experiences that they had. God spoken to them and gave them a message to give us.

These are just two good reasons for thinking that god exist now what reason do you have for thinking that god does not exist?

The first reason is referred to as the cosmological argument. It's most common form is the one supplied by Thomas Aquinas. It's basic premise is that each effect can be related to a previous cause. And that cause has a previous cause etc and we can regress back to the original cause. Aquinas referred to God as the Unmoved Mover. That which created the universe but was not created himself.
There's two problems with this. lets first of all say that we can trace everything with a domino effect back to the beginning, ie God. Well where did god come from? the logic which supports this argument says that something can't come from nothing, there has to be an ultimate cause. God solves that, but then using the same logic we have to ask where did god come from? Religious people can't supply an answer there. they use logic to get to that point and then abandon it.

The second problem is that there can be an infinite regress. mathematically it's been proven that an infinite regress can exist. That means there doesn't have to be what Aristotle would refer to as an efficient cause.

Your second argument is looping. You're using the content of the bible to prove the contents of the bible. If you accept that the bible is accurate about Jesus and Moses (and there's no evidence Moses existed, there's only a little for Jesus) then you also have to accept that Jephthah (who killed his innocent daughter because God told him to) and the fate of the Midianites (who were all killed except for the virgins who they raped) were real too. that God is evil. There's many examples of genocide in the old testament.

This is the maddest bit.

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

yep. God killed or maimed 42 boys for calling someone Baldy.

But if you want to say that there were men who were great and that we can assume that since they were great, they must have been telling the truth, then you're wrong. It's a kind of argument similar to an appeal to authority. Just because the source is great does not mean they were right. It's quite possible they were well meaning but had a mental disorder and heard voices (that's if they weren't lying. it's not like anyone has ever lied and started their own cult/religion). If that were the case i would have to say that scientology might be right.

BTW, there have been plenty of bad people who have been very successful throughout history.

I'm a soft atheist. i don't believe in God. I don't think God exists. I will admit that i may be wrong, but I'm pretty damn certain I'm right. It's like the Russell teapot argument. He said you could tell me there's a teapot floating in orbit between the earth and moon. I can't disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it's there. (He said this before space travel)

Bipolar Joe

Two or more Gods doesn't mean one of them needed help. Maybe the other ones sat around watching Grey's Anatomy or something, while one of them did all the work.

You said:

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

You set up an argument, that you can't get something from nothing, then you destroy your own argument by saying that no one created God. If no one created God, he came from nothing. So, if that's your logic, then I'd rather talk with someone who can at least have their own arguments make sense and remain consistent within the same paragraph. You don't seem to be able to do that, because either you didn't think it through or you're trolling.

Chunners

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Actually it is not irrational at all to believe that something can come from nothing because that whole "Something can't come from nothing" rule only applies within the laws of our own universe but our own universe didn't begin within itself, it started in a space that existed before it began (and still does otherwise what would our universe still be expanding into?) which had/has it's own laws. The laws of physic that we are all subject to are only as old as our universe is (15 billion odd years) and only exist within our own universe bubble. True nothingness (no light, no energy, no mass, no radiation, nothing) does not exist within our universe so we don't know what is possible in the existence of it since it would also not be subject to any laws.

Grayson

Chunners wrote: »

Actually it is not irrational at all to believe that something can come from nothing because that whole "Something can't come from nothing" rule only applies within the laws of our own universe but our own universe didn't begin within itself, it started in a space that existed before it began (and still does otherwise what would our universe still be expanding into?) which had/has it's own laws. The laws of physic that we are all subject to are only as old as our universe is (15 billion odd years) and only exist within our own universe bubble. True nothingness (no light, no energy, no mass, no radiation, nothing) does not exist within our universe so we don't know what is possible in the existence of it since it would also not be subject to any laws.

There is so much wrong with that.

You say that our universe is expanding into "Space" that exists outside it and then say that it's true nothingness. Which one is it?