Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,399 members, 7,954,578 topics. Date: Friday, 20 September 2024 at 11:23 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? (13564 Views)
Those Doubting The Existence Of God,what Is The Source Of Supernatural Powers / REVEALED: Popular Celebrities Who Dont Believe In The Existence Of God (PHOTOS) / Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by plaetton: 5:04pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Deep Sight: We can use use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at any pre-determined conclusions that we wish to. You are a lawyer , you should know that better than I do. Making a brilliant logical argument in court can win you cases but does it necessarily establish truth? The existence of super-dimensional energy or intelligence only brigs us to more questions and not answers. 1 Like |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 5:06pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
plaetton: My dear, think about it. Its all so incredibly simple. Ceazar nailed it all in simple words in his post. Let's take it calmly again - Caezar: You exist. You cannot exist from nothing. Therefore, something existed, prior to you, to have caused you. Nothing that existed prior to you could have existed from nothing. Therefore, This above answers your question as to why we know something must have always existed: i.e: being eternal. For lack of words he interpolated the word "beginning" though, which he should not have. I have modified with the underlined above. But in essence it captures it all; nothing that existed prior to this reality could have come from nothingness, as nothingness cannot bear somethingness. As such the only logical conclusion is a permanent somethingness. It could not logically be otherwise. What are self-existent things that you speak about? Pls name a few. Infinite Time Infinite Space Numbers Infinite Mind Infinite Energy Again leaving your imagination behind, what is that you know for sure that preceded all things? The foregoing. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by plaetton: 5:08pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Pls try to answer , is god existing as particle , energy or neither?. If neither, in what form? |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 5:11pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
plaetton: No we cannot. You are a lawyer , you should know that better than I do. Making a brilliant logical argument in court can win you cases but does it necessarily establish truth? Yes, that's because as humans we often arrive at wrong conclusions based on falsehoods and errors. This does not mean that if we had applied the proper logic consistently and correctly, we would not have arrived at the truth. The existence of super-dimensional energy or intelligence only brigs us to more questions and not answers. I am not talking about extra terrestrial intelligence in the form of aliens. I am referring to the infinite intelligence inherent in the framework of reality itself: which is what God is. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 5:15pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
plaetton: Pls try to answer , is god existing as particle , energy or neither?. If neither, in what form? In my view, God is the compound of pure intangible energy and the compound of self existent laws. This is not to say that I subscribe to God being strictly impersonal: for; as someone once powerfully remarked, creation itself reeks of a personal rather than impersonal act. Nevertheless I do not believe that God itself necessarily directly created this universe. Someday humans will create a universe. That does not mean humans and all of reality, have no ultimate origin - which is what God is. 1 Like |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by plaetton: 5:18pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Except for energy , the rest are imaginary. By numbers you mean infinite progression. same can be applied with time. I just want you to admit that most of what you postulate are just mere notions. You argue as if they were known and demonstrable facts.If you can only agree that hey are just one of many other notions, then we can both rest. Ideas do not become truths simply because we believe so much in them. Certainly a lot more that just wishful notions are required. Its is better to start with doubts with aim of arriving at certainty than to start with certainty and then end up with doubts. That is the folly of most theists and creatonists. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 5:22pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
plaetton: It is gibberish. He says that if God is something, then applying the nothing from nothing principle, God must come from something. God is not said to begin - because it is evident within the nothingness equation [0 + 0 = 0], that for anything to exist in reality [the right side of the equation], some quantity must permanently exist on the left side of the equation. Since things exist, and cannot sprout from nothingness, then there is a permanent somethingness - simple. He also says that ex nihilo nihil fit refutes the existence of God so long as God is something. That is poor reasoning. Are we going to say that same principle refutes the existence of anything that is something? Such as you and I? Can you see how self-contradictory and hopelessly mis-footed his statements are? I really cannot pander to such non-starters. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 5:26pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
plaetton: How so? They are all every real, and you experience them. We all do. Its is better to start with doubts with aim of arriving at certainty than to start with certainty and then end up with doubts. I agree with this. I am not saying these things with conviction just spontaenously: I have spent the better part of my life since I was 12 years or so reflecting on them to the point of distraction. The same thirst took me through a labyrinth of religions and philosophies, and its been a long road - which never ends, of course but I can say with confidence I have found my conviction in the nature of what this reality is and I am entirely at home with it. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by plaetton: 5:28pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Fianlly, I get you to agree that god must be intangible energy. We are making progress. So energy must be god. That is the only way the notion of self existence and immutablity can be a bit palatable. The physical universe, down to its basic component , is just intangible energy. e=mc2 So the universe is also energy(albeit compressed or dense energy) So, the universe, in its basic form, is also immutable and therefore self-existent. The very same same qualities you ascribe to god. So, the universe is god, or in the least, a part of god. Do you agree with my deductive logic? 1 Like |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 5:36pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
plaetton: I have never disputed your first line. Maybe you haven't understood my position. Yes I agree with your deductive logic except the part I have modified in your quote in red. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by plaetton: 5:44pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Deep Sight: To the sentences you modified, the question is ,Why not? You prefer? Bingo! I guess that is the issue. We all have preferences as to what should be our truth. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by plaetton: 5:49pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Correction: The universe is not mutable. The universe is made of matter. We all know from primary school that matter cannot be destroyed or created. It can only change form. Like I posted on a previous thread, the big b.ang was probably just an INFLECTION POINT in transition from pure energy to physical matter. It was not the beginning of existence of matter. 1 Like |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 6:10pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Deep Sight: The first fallacy you pandered to is that of Slippery slope, by disembarking from the progression of my arguments, tagging it 'gibberish'. I forgive your ignorance. The second fallacy you're guilty of is called 'petitio principii'(begging the question), by engaging in a circular argument, when you used what requires proof itself to prove your argument. I can't but tell you that the foundation of your whole argument is faulty. Using the phantom called self-existence to prove the status quo, is like recoursing to the bible to prove the existential puzzles. You don't create an imagined phenomenon and call it a supportive determiner of real events; it is fallacious and fraudulent. It's like saying, all certain humans will die..,and later say that the parents of those humans cannot die: are the parents not humans? Undoubtedly, we all know that this presumed self-existent entity is also a part and under the governing rules of existentiality. So, why do you now prematurely and illogically obviated this force from the rule of causality. Hence, i'll appeal to you to stop derailing the thread with your potpourri of fallacies. Stop behaving you know what you don't know at all. Answer the numerous logical questions from my previous posts! Does God have an origin? Does he have a creator? Does he have a beginning? If the answers to these questions is NO!then you'll be unlearned to continue saying this your God is SOMETHING. Because, whatever you call 'something' must have a beginning, an origin, and a cause! Prove me wrong dude! |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by jayriginal: 7:19pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Deep Sight: What a bore. There is no basis for saying "god did not begin" other than a need to escape from clumsy dogma.
And so to solve the problem of infinite regression; I present to you, the oneness of infinity. An infinitely self-existing, questionably "immutable" non material thingy. What a load of rubbish. Believe what you want to believe but while you are at it, stop labouring under the illusion that you are making any amount of sense.
And they will do so not through science but by employing fallacious arguments and spurious reasoning. Not so, eh Mr "Deep Sight" ? |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 7:19pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
I admit i'm not a fan of mathematics, but at least i'm not as vapid to not give a simple mathematical illustration of my argument. Here is it: 1. Let 0 stands for 'nothing'. 2. Let 1 stands for 'something'. 3. Hence, 0 + 0 = 0(i.e.nothing and nothing = nothing). 0 - 0 = 0(i.e. nothing without nothing is still nothing)...Ex nihilo nihil fit. 4. Hence, 1 + 1 = 2(i.e. something and something is two somethings). 1 - 1 = 0(something without something is nothing). 5. Hence, if God(something) exists without something else, it is NO-THING! |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 7:31pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
jayriginal:i'm telling you, the guy is so dogmatic that he couldn't even pick the fragments of the argument. As the yoruba adage goes: eni ti ko doko baba elomiran ri, a se pe oko baba re lo ju. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by jayriginal: 7:37pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Nothing wrong with a conviction (the trinitarians you are so fond of have their own convictions as well you know?). However until your convictions can be demonstrated as fact, they are merely that; convictions. Deep Sight:The above is a rather unfortunate statement. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by jayriginal: 7:46pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Lord Babs: i'm telling you, the guy is so dogmatic that he couldn't even pick the fragments of the argument. As the yoruba adage goes: eni ti ko doko baba elomiran ri, a se pe oko baba re lo ju. As Fela said "Carpenter wey no know him work na kpako". When a "philosopher" is not acquainted with the basic tools of his trade LOGIC, na kpako be that oh. http://www.amazon.com/Logic-For-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416 1 Like |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by jayriginal: 8:01pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
While I think he was being a tad glib, the point he makes is very clear. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by joe4christ(m): 8:09pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
Lord Babs: you still don't get it, do you? The existence of a supreme deity, otherwise called God, [size=15pt]is known to be characterised by its ability of having not emerged from something[/size], which is contrary to ex nihilo nihil fit. So, how does the expression affirms its existence? [size=15pt]And that's why he's God!!![/size] |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by plaetton: 8:17pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
joe4christ: ........And that is why he is just a figment of your imaginations. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 8:40pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
joe4christ:who is this one? This arena is strictly for adults, please. Return to your sunday school. Oya! Afira! |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by wiegraf: 11:54pm On Jul 29, 2012 |
So much, there's a little too much. Ignore this as it's going to go all over the place if you're only interested the main topic. Also, I'll be reiterating a lot things that should be rather obvious to most of us (annoying), and speculating (equally annoying) Lord Babs: I'm not too sure about what you are trying to demonstrate here. You're a lawyer? I think it's because I'm not too familiar with the way you guys illustrate stuff. With the biological organisms dying bit for instance, I think of it in terms of energy. Sure, "all men must die", but energy remains the same. When the organism was alive, it was collecting energy from the environment (food, sunlight, whatever mechanism) and using it to 'live'. Basically the second law of thermodynamics, no need to get into too much detail. Just that my thinking style cannot relate to that Lord Babs: This post I understand, and couldn't agree more (but another death analogy.. I think he is of the opinion that the parents are not human, rather made of jazz or something, but he doesn't elaborate) Lord Babs:Yup, something like that, just not sure where the -1 comes from. plaetton :Because, GOD plaetton : Lucid and succinct. Sometimes I wish I had that jayriginal:That shouldn't be too hard to understand, no? Deep Sight: That took a while, finally what you think god is. And you think there's something personal about it. Why? And now my own semi-coherent ramblings If you require something to be imutable, we can go with infinite energy. If there was only infinite energy as a starting point, you could actually say there was: nothing. Everything would be the same, every point you pass in which ever direction would be infinite energy, practically nothing (or the exact same properties everywhere). Matter and antimatter (both energy) are constantly colliding, infinitely, and cancelling each other out. Every once in a while though some matter escapes (even antimatter escapes, but for unknown reasons this is much, much rarer, so much so antimatter is considered the most expensive substance on this rock), and this makes up the known universe. (if you think this doesn't make sense look up the incompleteness theorem, math can be tricky). The big ban.g to most is one of these collisions going ballistic, for reasons we are not too clear of, and creating unimaginable amounts of matter in a few seconds. The main point is the infinite energy is still there, just canceling itself out, being "nothing". I'm not going to make any assertions though, as this is not fact. I'm not even sure if I understand the concepts and details, this is just my personal opinions and stuff. However, objectively, I cannot see in any way how you can justify creation as "reeking of something personal". You'll have to explain how, why, else it comes across to me as you believing in what you want to believe, perhaps because it makes you comfortable. I actually have a job, s^%&, I'm off 1 Like |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by jayriginal: 12:45am On Jul 30, 2012 |
I wonder why they spend so much time and money studying and documenting these things and then presenting their findings for scrutiny. Surely its better and more accurate to sit outside, look to the heavens and intuit the mysteries of nature. Of course certain "herbs" would enhance this intuition, particularly when such herbs are set on fire
Which is why we assert that something (all inclusive) cannot come from nothing and then save our god from this limitation by excluding it.
2 Likes |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Kay17: 2:16am On Jul 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Change is believed by many wise men *smile* as the only permanent object. Understanding that the First Cause gives off a potential the Universe and its constituent matter, then one must acknowledge that the First Cause itself changed/transformed/altered state to form the Universe. The universe is not a separate entity but should be at least a part of the First Cause. Therefore concluding that due to the alterable state of Matter and energy, both can't be the first cause is faulty. Also, to suggest the immaterial gives off the material, knowing both entities radically diFferent and considering that both don't share the same substance is to seek for a Miracle. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 7:29am On Jul 30, 2012 |
Akpos: tell me about the earth. Hindu: the earth rested on an elephant and the elephant rested on a tortoise. Akpos: so, what is the tortoise resting on? Hindu: suppose we change the subject. Deep sight: God exists. I've known this since i was 12. Akpos: really? Who is God? Deep sight: something. Akpos: who are his parents? Deep sight: nothing! Akpos: chow! can nothing give birth to something? Deep sight: your questions are too much, have you taken your bath? |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 7:40am On Jul 30, 2012 |
jayriginal:This really got me laugh ing. . .i recommend that to Deep sight especially. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 7:44am On Jul 30, 2012 |
jayriginal:FRAUD IN ITS ENTIRETY! |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by wiegraf: 7:47am On Jul 30, 2012 |
^^^^^ What a silly argument, we both know it's turtles all the way down. This argument also ignores the fact that if were uniformly falling through infinity, we wouldn't be able to tell ( actually that is similar to what is actually happening and gravity in gr, can anyone explain gr in plain english?). How's that sir?! |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 8:09am On Jul 30, 2012 |
wiegraf: ^^^^^please, can you be more coherent? I don't seem to understand the propeller of your question. |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by wiegraf: 8:54am On Jul 30, 2012 |
Oops, never mind. It was a joke.. But if the turtle were falling, and we were moving along with it, so long as speed were constant we would not be able to to tell the diffrence. If we were under it and it were pushing (accelerating actually), the effect would be indistinguishable from that of gravity (gr= general relativity), or something like that. So we could still be on top of (or under) a giant turtle moving through space. Who would have thunk! |
Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by joe4christ(m): 9:01am On Jul 30, 2012 |
plaetton: [size=15pt]And that's why you're an ignoramus fool who is demented but thinks he's wise enough to know the origin of existance itself. You're just pathetically dumb blessed with a shallow twisted mind, i pity your fate![/size] |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)
Finally I Have Crossed The Bridge Of Agnostism Into The Land Of Atheism / What Does It Mean To Know God? John 17.3 / I've Been A Deep Believer My Whole Life.
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 111 |