Hello Duduspace, Krayola, and deep sight
I get the sentiment about the threads he raises and you guys are right about deep sight being a gentle beast , but this is the particular part in david's post that struck a chord in me

we are still as far away from understanding whether or not God truly exists!

I am tired of threads that lead us nowhere but into different realms of mathematics and feigned reasoning, I feel IMO that there are many other issues that we can discuss which have an effect on our society today, the issue of the existence of God is as old as forever and it might always be that way except someone can maybe show it to us empirically we are but stuck, I might be able to stomach these threads if they could at least add a measure of uncertainty to it, but when you see things like

4. A Rational Basis for existence can only be based on a rationality of the core of existence (the singularity) and thus -

5. The singularity is rational, reasonable and logical in its nature (mathematical)

6. The deduced rationality is the quality of mind;

7. The abstract mind inferred thereby is the complete image: an unembodied universal mind which we call God.

How is this any different from the man who says the world was created in 7 days by God? The above comes across to me as though deep sight just finished eating bole and smoked fish with God, as such knows the fine details of how this deity came about.
Furthermore I opened a thread where I specifically asked him if it was important for us to know if God exists, he says no then I ask why waste pages here proving his existence?

I will let you guys carry on with your discussion but all I see is dogma coated with grammar.

Chrisbenogor:


The above comes across to me as though deep sight just finished eating bole and smoked fish with God.

ROTFLMAO! LOL! Chris, you no go kill person o!

Deep Sight:

^^^ Because everything is spawned from that Singularity, which i call God,thus, everything is spawned by God.

I am done with this proof, it is conclusive, and Tudor has deliberately run away finding no awnswers to this proof.

I now move speedily to the next proof.

I am sure you are all very familiar with this pyramid (BELOW)

1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111=123456789 87654321

Abstract quantities by the very nature of co-existing multiply mathematically to infinity. Thus it is no coincidence that this pyramid matches the infinity axis which i drew up in the first post. This backs up the assertion that [1] (a singularity or oneness of infinity) = God, and spawns contnuous infinity therefrom, in terms of abstract quantification.

GBAM.

I must say, you're yet to say ANYTHING fresh which science does not acknowledge already. Its general scientific thought that the state of the universe at the big bang was a singularity, so whats novel in your ideas?

You're free to call this "singularity" god but you're yet to show how it fits into your definition of god.

viaro:

Deep Sight, so that this thread would enjoy a tidy flow and not be derailed, I'm considering a new thread for us to talk more on this dimension stuff. You captivated my imagination on a few pointers which I'd hitherto not considered deeply enough. What say you?

Great, i am really game. . . i do wonder what section would be ideal for it though. . . this is why i had begged the Admin to create a Child Board for Theology, Philosophy and other abstract stuff. . .

Tudór:

I must say, you're yet to say ANYTHING fresh which science does not acknowledge already. Its general scientific thought that the state of the universe at the big bang was a singularity, so whats novel in your ideas?

Hi Tudor, I may have been missing something; but I think it may be fair to frequently remind us to be careful where we read what others are saying and not what they are not saying. At that, I don't know if Deep Sight has claimed that his ideas were novel. If he did, I missed it.

You're free to call this "singularity" god but you're yet to show how it fits into your definition of god.

Maybe, and maybe not. I think he made a good attempt (IMO) to do that very thing, rather than just freely calling the singularity 'god'. An example is that, after reasoning things through, he came round to indicate that the basis for his ascribing 'God' to that singularity is this -

One single infinity. That is what i mean by the term "Oneness of Infinity". Interlaced in this subtle answer i have laid out is, i believe, the very equation that leads nothingness to be somethingness - namely - a singularity - which i call God

.

I think that says quite a lot for me, personally; and I appreciate it may not do so for you and some others. But even so, I am glad that some of us have come back to express these sentiments:

duduspace: Chrisbenogor, I think this is a bit different because Deepsight does sound sincere so far in his discussions . . . yes we can get bored and drift away but I think we will someday come back and take a look at the various posts and therein reexamine and refine our individual understanding of our existence.

duduspace: I think the whole point of discussions such as this is to test and reexamine your own beliefs and understanding, while hearing other people's ideas, . . .

I saw that summary point as the substance in discussions like this, which whet my appetite to engage Deep Sight in a separate thread and rub minds together along such lines.

Viaro. . .where will you create that thread?

Deep Sight:

Great, i am really game. . .

Good man! I wasn't sure if it may merit a separate thread; but let's give it a shot and see how far, yes? If you concur, just requote this line and gee a smiley! I just didn't want to derail this one by hijacking its premise. Kudos.

i do wonder what section would be ideal for it though. . .

I don't know, and you might've been reading my mind. However, if the current one is a basket for discussions about belief in "God or higher powers", it might just be sufficient for the mo.

this is why i had begged the Admin to create a Child Board for Theology, Philosophy and other abstract stuff. . .

I absolutely concur with the move to create such a board for philosophical and abstract stuff; and perhaps I might sense that the admin might have (or may not have) considered that move. One reason for delaying that move is prolly because not so many people might have registered enough strength to discuss with philosophical depth at any stretch. Bless the day when such a board is born on NL!


Edit:

---

Deep Sight:

Viaro. . .where will you create that thread?

Perhaps still on the Religion board? Yes?

If yes, then watch this space.

viaro:

If yes, then watch this space.

Deep Sight, dinner is served. Come munch away and forget the toothpicks!

@Chrisbenogor

Chrisbenogor:

Furthermore I opened a thread where I specifically asked him if it was important for us to know if God exists, he says no then I ask why waste pages here proving his existence?

I will let you guys carry on with your discussion but all I see is dogma coated with grammar.

Just outta interest, have you become an apathetic agnostic too? always took you for a full blown atheist.

Chrisbenogor:


Furthermore I opened a thread where I specifically asked him if it was important for us to know if God exists, he says no then I ask why waste pages here proving his existence?

Chris, please put in proper context what i said in that thread in reaction to your question:

Deep Sight:


Thus, globally speaking, one does not necessarily have to know, interact with, or even contemplate God in order to live a fruitful life on a basic level, as God in his Divine Abstraction is absolutely unsearchable and indeed incomprehensible.

Nevertheless it is important to add that knowing the things of God, the laws of God, and the purposes of God will enrich a man's life beyond compare. We can decipher these things by reading the Book of Life - which is nature around us. Therein, all the secrets, all the lessons, and all the things of God which we need to know, are clearly revealed. Therein, without recourse to any church or mosque, and without recourse to any "saviour" or "prophet", every man can discern his conscience, and live in justice and purity, with a bold hope of one meaningful and beautiful life after another.

To my mind, the only real danger inherent in not believeing in God, is that it leads some people to entirely doubt the existence of any spirituality whatsoever, and i am certain that such an attitude will serve to weaken the spiritual part of a persons's life, in some degree or the other.

viaro:

Hi Tudor, I may have been missing something; but I think it may be fair to frequently remind us to be careful where we read what others are saying and not what they are not saying. At that, I don't know if Deep Sight has claimed that his ideas were novel. If he did, I missed it.

Sorry, but you're clearly taking the meaning wrongly. I merely tried to imply that deep sight has said nothing different that we do not accept already. This thread is hinged on the "singularity" which science already accepts. When i saw this thread, i expected somthing I don't already know to blow my mind away.

As a side note, deep sight frequently talks about new ideas and how we atheists aren't original.

Maybe, and maybe not. I think he made a good attempt (IMO) to do that very thing, rather than just freely calling the singularity 'god'. An example is that, after reasoning things through, he came round to indicate that the basis for his ascribing 'God' to that singularity is this -.
I think that says quite a lot for me, personally; and I appreciate it may not do so for you and some others. But even so, I am glad that some of us have come back to express these sentiments:

Fair enough, but what I saw was someone whinge on the singularity and mysteriously declare it as conclusive proof for god. This "oneness of infinity" stuff is absolutely pointless IMO. . . . What I expected to see was simply a link between his arguments and his definition of god.

Quotes like this dont quite cut it. . ."Interlaced in this subtle answer I have laid out is, I believe the very equation that leads nothingness to somethingness-namely-a singularity which I call God. . . . HOW What equation?
How did the singularity (something) come from nothing?

Tudór:

Sorry, but you're clearly taking the meaning wrongly. I merely tried to imply that deep sight has said nothing different that we do not accept already. This thread is hinged on the "singularity" which science already accepts. When i saw this thread, i expected somthing I don't already know to blow my mind away.

As a side note, deep sight frequently talks about new ideas and how we atheists aren't original.

Quite apt, thank you Tudór. I missed your point and take it on board.

Fair enough, but what I saw was someone whinge on the singularity and mysteriously declare it as conclusive proof for god. This "oneness of infinity" stuff is absolutely pointless IMO. . . . What I expected to see was simply a link between his arguments and his definition of god.

I should reserve further comments while appreciating your view. However, suffice to say for now that for some people like myself, I find tremendous value in what he has stirred up in our thoughts on the oneness of infinity and ancillary discourses. As regards his definition, maybe not sufficient enough to register with the expectations of may readers.

Quotes like this dont quite cut it. . ."Interlaced in this subtle answer I have laid out is, I believe the very equation that leads nothingness to somethingness-namely-a singularity which I call God. . . . HOW What equation?
How did the singularity (something) come from nothing?

I feel you. Perhaps the fault was mine in my preliminary observations (for which I deeply regret any diversions mine may have caused). Could I interest you with some discussions along such lines later on? Perhaps. . ?

Cheers.

Just outta interest, have you become an apathetic agnostic too? always took you for a full blown atheist.

Funny thing is I have never claimed to be a full blown atheist on nairaland, I lean towards atheism but the issue of God's existence does not bother me at all again, maybe that is why these threads bore me.
Dear deep sight,

Thus, globally speaking, one does not necessarily have to know, interact with, or even contemplate God in order to live a fruitful life on a basic level, as God in his Divine Abstraction is absolutely unsearchable and indeed incomprehensible.

This is enough for me.
Carry on.
Cheers.

The self deciet and illusions of grandeur on these threads never fail to amaze me.

duduspace:

Chrisbenogor, I think this is a bit different because Deepsight does sound sincere so far in his discussions unlike davidylan who is basically a christian fanatic and I think we can get some where on this, yes we can get bored and drift away but I think we will someday come back and take a look at the various posts and therein reexamine and refine our individual understanding of our existence.

I think the whole point of discussions such as this is to test and reexamine your own beliefs and understanding, while hearing other people's ideas, something that is wholly beyond Davidylan because his belief is cast in stone and basically cannot change. He is not coming here to test his beliefs but to assert it and therein lies his problem.

this thread does not examine your beliefs nor your understanding . . . infact its a pointless exercise leading nowhere. I can wager my 2 cents that virtually ALL the folks on this thread are relying at least 90% on google at this point, hence the long periods between responses. Lets be honest to ourselves . . . how does man-made numerals tell us anything about God? If you believe you can solve the spiritual using algebra then i've got a plot of land in Cameroun to sell to you.

Krayola:

^^ I concur. While i disagree with deep sight a lot, I appreciate his being on this forum because he forces us to think hard, and never backs down, is usually polite, and is a great sport.

errr think hard about what really? Answer me this honest question . . . what is new that this thread has taught you about the afterlife?

davidylan:



errr think hard about what really? Answer me this honest question . . . what is new that this thread has taught you about the afterlife?

I don't believe in the "afterlife", or the "supernatural", so not really looking to learn anything about them. . . I'm eager to learn what others think about them, though, and why. He forces me to think of possibilities . .some that i never considered. I don't believe one has to agree with or believe in something to critically engage it. I don't believe in the Bible but I read it and read about it, same with the Qu'ran . Though we disagree, I don't see why I shouldn't learn about something just because i disagree with it. I don't think anyone is going to prove anything about God using numbers, but should that stop me from hearing what he has to say, or cause me to turn him into an enemy?  That isn't how my "immoral and Godless" self rolls. . . It seems that u beg to differ. . 

Krayola:

I don't believe in the "afterlife", or the "supernatural", so not really looking to learn anything about them. . . I'm eager to learn what others think about them, though, and why. He forces me to think of possibilities . .some that i never considered. I don't believe one has to agree with or believe in something to critically engage it. I don't believe in the Bible but I read it and read about it, same with the Qu'ran . Though we disagree, I don't see why I shouldn't learn about something just because i disagree with it. I don't think anyone is going to prove anything about God using numbers, but should that stop me from hearing what he has to say, or turn him into an enemy?  That isn't how my "immoral and Godless" self rolls. . . It seems that u beg to differ. .   

Very simple question - pls mention one pertinent thing this thread has taught you?

davidylan:

Very simple question - pls mention one pertinent thing this thread has taught you?

haha. Since you care so much about detail, where, in the quote you posted, did i say I had learned anything about the after life. Or where in the title of this thread, or the posts, do we appear to be discussing the afterlife.

Since you must know what I have learned from this thread. . .I have learned, in my attempts to counter deep sights arguments

1) That counting evolved differently in different cultures.
2) That Babylonian base 60 counting was the basis for early geometry
3) What a "vector space" is.
4) That there is romance in the air between deepsight and Viaro.
5) That Davidylan can't stand the fact that theists, atheist, deists and agnostics alike are having a debate free of insults and ridicule, that he just couldn't help to come in and share the "Love of Jesus" with us
etc.

Krayola:

haha. Since you care so much about detail, where, in the quote you posted, did i say I had learned anything about the after life. Or where in the title of this thread, or the posts, do we appear to be discussing the afterlife.

Since you must know what I have learned from this thread. . .I have learned, in my attempts to counter deep sights arguments

1) That counting evolved differently in different cultures.
2) That Babylonian base 60 counting was the basis for early geometry
3) What a "vector space" is.
4) That there is romance in the air between deepsight and Viaro.
5) That Davidylan can't stand the fact that theists, atheist, deists and agnostics alike are having a debate free of insults and ridicule, that he just couldn't help to come in and share the "Love of Jesus" with us
etc.

And all these have exactly what relevance to religion?

davidylan:

And all these have exactly what relevance to religion?

Deepsight is attempting to demonstrate the existence of God. His God. But while he is yet to convince me, I still think I have taken something of value from the discussion.

Krayola:

Deepsight is attempting to demonstrate the existence of God. His God. But while he is yet to convince me, I still think I have taken something of value from the discussion.

Aside from the fact that you sidestepped my question . . . how is deepsight demonstrating the existence of his "god" with numerals man invented?

Exactly WHAT have you taken from the discussion and how is it relevant to the religion section?

davidylan:

Aside from the fact that you sidestepped my question

which question have i side stepped.

davidylan:

. . . how is deepsight demonstrating the existence of his "god" with numerals man invented?

I said he is "attempting". . . as u can see from the previous pages.

davidylan:

Exactly WHAT have you taken from the discussion and how is it relevant to the religion section?

The discussion is about his God. I think he has a right to discuss his beliefs on the religious section, as you. I'm not religious so i'm not looking for theological insight. I'm interested in religion as a cultural phenomenon, and enjoy discussion it with people. As long as I'm learning something, I'm good. I've listed what I have learned for you. .  . .  I'm not sure what other information u need. . .

@Krayola
Hey bro I thought you had midterms?

Chrisbenogor:

@Krayola
Hey bro I thought you had midterms?

Midterms? Is that some kind of indisposition you get for engaging davidylan in back and forth unprogressive constipated discussion?

Lol, I can't smile and laugh enough!

@Krayola, it's obvious that even when things are spelt out in ABC, some would still not see it any day! Here:

Krayola:

Since you must know what I have learned from this thread. . .I have learned, in my attempts to counter deep sights arguments

1) That counting evolved differently in different cultures.
2) That Babylonian base 60 counting was the basis for early geometry
3) What a "vector space" is.
4) That there is romance in the air between deepsight and Viaro.

Hehe, I learned quite a lot more on vector space myself after my initial mention of that phrase - and if it wasn't that you had pointedly asked me a question (a very simple question) on that, I would still have been either swimming in my ocean of ignorance on what it entails and how far reaching it is; or I would remain calcified in the little idea I was holding about its concept! Yes, in our discussions, duduspace was absolutely right when he said that 'the whole point of discussions such as this is to test and reexamine your own beliefs and understanding,' - and it worked just fine with me.

Hey, you're wicked, you know!  How could you have stated #4?

5) That Davidylan can't stand the fact that theists, atheist, deists and agnostics alike are having a debate free of insults and ridicule, that he just couldn't help to come in and share the "Love of Jesus" with us  
etc.

Words on marble. It makes me wonder deeply why some of us feel that we cannot discuss at any level unless we turn everyone else into "us".

Dear davidylan, I can trust that my comments may not be the best thing you've heard on this thread. But if you allow for some considerations, my concerns are borne out of one thing: we (you and I) are Christians, and the way we portray ourselves is louder than the message we wish to bear to any audience. This is why I'd like to make some comments directly on some of the queries you raised.

davidylan:

And all these have exactly what relevance to religion?

But what really is religion, davidylan? Christianity is not the only "religion" that needs to be discussed on Nairaland - and certainly our own brand of Christianity is certainly not the only thing we think should qualify as "religion" worthy of relevance here.

Now, should anyone try to correct me that 'Christianity' is not a 'religion', I would be thankful to note that as such it should not appear on this motherboard to qualify for any discussion! Yes, for those who are always in brigade to hoot that Christianity is a 'relationship', I've got news for them: just simply take your 'relationship' type of Christianity to the Romance board on NL and stay there! If that is a bit surprising, then we should learn to allow others share their views about 'God' or 'higher powers' without trying to cast them in our own molds of what qualifies as a 'religion' to be discussed on this board!

davidylan:

Aside from the fact that you sidestepped my question . . . how is deepsight demonstrating the existence of his "god" with numerals man invented?

I feel that question is seriously misplaced. Deep Sight's demonstrations for the existence of God (or of any deity for that matter) is his own! It certainly may not have caught the interest of some of us who think otherwise; but we can all come away appreciating the fact of his attempts. Guess what? Several among us have been surprised with the challenges these discussions have birthed - such as having to go back and re-examine our own understandings about the world and existence itself.

For me, I took away the valuable lesson of seeing that nothing can be 100% water-tight correct in one singularity! That is something I cherish so much, especially because it helped me to see that even the most cherished traditional interpretations we make in our Christian faith are also NOT water-tight at all. That does not mean that the whole of Christianity in itself faulty - please note that I said "interpretations".

Now, there are two observations I'd further make:

(a) demonstrating the existence of God/god with man-made numerals:
I'm surprised you're even asking that question at all. Perhaps on seeing that the username who bravely attempted such a demonstration was 'Deep Sight', you consequently felt the need to react! That should not be necessary. Think about it for a minute: many, many of our own Christian theologians have been busy trying to do that very same thing - demonstrate the existence of God by many man-made tools and philosophies! Yes, they have travelled from mathematics to the social sciences to arts to . . (pick your poison) - all these and more are man-made and we have indeed tried (as Christians) to demonstrate God's existence (not His origin) by those man-made tools.

But just think of it for a minute: aside from numerals, did our Lord Jesus Christ Himself not make use of these man-made tools to demonstrate (or illustrate) the veracity of God's existence in His teachings? Are you shocked? C'mon, david! You can't split hairs over that - and if you may not have a clue about that, I'd be glad to dialogue with you on that (as long as we do so without acid in our exchanges).

(b) It may amaze some of us Christians that non-Christians could have the braveness to attempt discussing the existence of the divine by any tool for that purpose, and in doing so come away with dramatic effects upon us Christians (or religionists for that matter). I have no problem engaging non-Christians or Atheists or Deists or Theists on interesting topics - and this is one such interesting topic. There are no gate fees or tickets other than mutual respect for one another - where unto we find that our calcified belief systems may be shaken out of age-old slumbers. Do I suspect that one possible reason why people like Deep Sight has been at the end of your religious baton is because of that very thing - the vigorous shaking of our own molded interpretations of our worldview? Maybe not - and yes, we could say that our faith is not thereby threatened in any way. That would be an interesting claim - but why then would we be so reactive if we're undisturbed or unperturbed at all? I could easily smile and pass on, or enjoy the invitation to discuss in the thread. .  or be reactive because I feel threatened in one way or another. I don't know of any fourth option.

We can discuss. Even where we do not agree with the points passed by others, we could at least make our observations amicably. Mind battles are not necessarily won by disparagements, but by intelligent and reasoned dialogue people change their minds (or they end up changing ours).

I hope this would meet your respectable consideration. Cheers.

^^^
Dude, all this long epistle for davidylan alone? I'm willing to wager deep sights life that what you wrote have no meaning whatsoever to him or some other christian out there. Its simply your personal opinion others may apply the "flee from all apperances of evil/sin" or "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" rules here.

If faith cometh by hearing and hearing the word of God where do you suppose "weakening of faith" comes from? And we all know unbelief/lack of faith is a sin. Put two and two together and you understand the rationale for avoiding discussions as this.

Disclaimer: The above doesn't apply to me neither do I subscribe to the bible quotations above, I'm merely reflecting the reasons given to our parents as to why the TOE or big bang theory wasn't taught to us in school back then.

Tudór:

If faith cometh by hearing and hearing the word of God where do you suppose "weakening of faith" comes from?

Hehe. . I don't know where the 'weakening' comes from other than its a queer comparison in your theory. Like your disclaimer, though. . just that neither of those could be narrowly blamed on anyone heretofore.

Chrisbenogor:

@Krayola
Hey bro I thought you had midterms?

haha. I've been done since last thursday. Although I have to write 2500 words on how  the "Oneness of God" is understood by different expressions of Islam, by tonight, and I have only just started, thanks to football.  . . . . and Barcelona didn't even win  Times like this i wish Abuzola was my best friend 

Pastor AIO:

Midterms?  Is that some kind of indisposition you get for engaging davidylan in back and forth unprogressive constipated discussion? 

haha

viaro:

Hey, you're wicked, you know!  How could you have stated #4?

By the power invested in me by Cupid, i now pronounce you . . . . . . . .   .

Krayola:

By the power invested in me by Cupid, i now pronounce you . . . . . . . .   . 

Hehe. . even more wicked!

Panting from the the hectic dash, we move speedily along, avoiding delays and distractions, to the next proof. This one, i must concede, will take the form of an explanatory deduction, and not a pure mathematical argument. In this, we need to address a cardinal question:

Krayola:

so where does God come into the picture? let's get to the koko of the matter.

Krayola:

Let's pretend everything in that post is accurate and true. How does that God = Transcendent creator.

Great. Let’s start from here. But before we kick off, let me regurgitate this –

Deep Sight:


I do not quite see it that way. I disagree that all the matter in the universe could have been packed into, or existing in a dot of a point. I am rather persuaded that it is energy that was concentrated in the singularity and on this there is considerable scientific thinking (as per Energy turning into, or being matter). Let me be quick to accept, before you slice off my head, that energy and matter are interrelated in the transitory fashion that you pointed out, but there is a subtlety which colours my own perception of things. . .

I am  persuaded that the oneness of infinity which I described above is in fact a “hot-capsule” of all infinite possible energy (not material), and that this energy formed the basis for the explosion/ expansion into matter. I will use this point to address Krayola’s question on the coming into being of matter at a later point in this discourse.

Yes. Back to “the oneness of infinity.” Are there any problems envisaging this as a “hot capsule” of all possible infinite energy? Let us use a detailed analysis to understand this, so we are clear that we do not speak only of matter.

I started this thread with numeric postulations. This we understand to be a system of abstract quantification. The very word “abstract” indicates certainly the non-material. Thus we need to understand that this postulation starts in what philosophers call “the world of forms”.

Basically, for the beginner, the world of forms refers to the “ideas” of things existing. It is non-material, and abstract. (As we go along we will see that it is transcendent, and is the real “existence” which brings further or material existence into being.)

Thus to elucidate (contrary to the poorly informed view of Davidylan) numbers are abstract forms which exist in and by themselves within the world of forms. Man did not invent numbers. He invented symbols and words to ascribe to already existing quantities. For example, if man saw 9 planets around the sun, those planets have been 9 in number ever before man began to exist on Earth, but man required a way to articulate the quantity he was seeing – and in this he comes up with his own numeric system, the figure [9] and the word [nine]. But there were always nine [quantity] planets there already! Just as there were already x zillion galaxies in the universe, whether man was there to count them or not, or use the word "zillion" or not!

Numbers are an abstract form, an abstract reality that exists in the world of forms.

The reason I am dwelling on this is to show one thing – abstract realities can create energy, and further on, matter. Proof?

A crude example. What’s that thought in your head? Can you touch it? Feel it? Smell it? No – It is intangible, it is an abstract form, and this abstract form because it has meaning will lead to energy and action e.g: you get up to drink the beer in the fridge you have ben thinking about. This is a very crude and simple analogy, and I will strive to produce better ones as I go along. But to make a slightly better attempt, let me try another crude example. Let me ask – what is mental strength? Or what is called strength of mind? It is not muscle. It is not brain-cells either, as that may be tied with intelligence. It is not even synapses within the brain. It is nothing physical at all. It comes rather from the thoughts formed by the mind: e.g: I love my family and as such I will run into that burning building to save them even if I die or am maimed in the process. That is strength of mind. It does not come from anything physical, but from an abstract thought.

(Perhaps a finer example, which i will elaborate further upon at a later time, is music. Imagine all the un-sung or un-conceived tunes of music that can be. There are infinite. They are un-conceived as yet, yes? Wwhere will they be conceived from? Ideas - they exist permanently and immutable in the world of forms, and that will translate into conceived music at some point.)

Thus strength can be derived from abstraction. It therefore follows abstract realities, by the very nature of their abstraction are imbued with energy. I realize that this is a very “grandiose” assertion (apologies to Dususpace) which we may be light years away from confirming, but I am persuaded that a simple and calm reflection of the line of thinking, and looking closely at what we mean by an abstraction, along with the very crude analogies above, can serve to confirm this in our minds.

Yes guys, the abstract form of the number [1] is imbued with energy.

Now back to the Oneness of Infinity. I have already described above what that means.

Now what sort of energy would such a oneness of all infinity in existence exhibit. Clearly, it will exhibit infinite energy!

Thus we have the basis for energy being imbued within the oneness of all empty infinity.

Now with that in mind, let us take a look at our own universe. Are there any suggestions of an underlying pulsating energy which may be attributed to such?

Yes there is –

[size=16pt]Dark Energy[/size]
From Wikipedia.
In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 74% of the total mass-energy of the universe.[2]
Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously,[3] and scalar fields such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar fields that are constant in space are usually also included in the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is physically equivalent to vacuum energy. Scalar fields which do change in space can be difficult to distinguish from a cosmological constant because the change may be extremely slow.
High-precision measurements of the expansion of the universe are required to understand how the expansion rate changes over time. In general relativity, the evolution of the expansion rate is parameterized by the cosmological equation of state. Measuring the equation of state of dark energy is one of the biggest efforts in observational cosmology today.
Adding the cosmological constant to cosmology's standard FLRW metric leads to the Lambda-CDM model, which has been referred to as the "standard model" of cosmology because of its precise agreement with observations. Dark energy has been used as a crucial ingredient in a recent attempt[4] to formulate a cyclic model for the universe.

What can we glean? The universe is pulsating with a constantly moving and unseen energy. As it expands outward, this energy cannot be quantified.

Let us return to the Big Bang.

>>>>It shows us that the universe began to expand from a point, a singularity.

We have seen that that singularity may be described as a oneness of all infinity. We have seen that it was imbued with, and was, a “hot capsule of infinite energy” as I stated before. We have seen that invisible energy continues to propel more than 70% of it.

We can accordingly deduce that the oneness of infinity imbued with infinite energy caused it to begin to expand from that singularity, and sustains it with invisible energy till date. This is what I call God, and as we go along will see why this infinite force is per force self conscious.

davidylan:

Very simple question - pls mention one pertinent thing this thread has taught you?

davidylan:

I can wager my 2 cents that virtually ALL the folks on this thread are relying at least 90% on google at this point, hence the long periods between responses.

GBAM! Evidence that the thread is beyond you. Please back off and stay off!

Maybe there are long breaks because the issues are actually thought-provoking and people have to reflect on the depth of what is discussed before posting? In your own realm, you can easily come back with a quick riposte from your sacred Jewish document, beyond which there is no thought.

I know you will be tempted to post a rebuttal or insult as a rejoinder to this, you may do so, but please once done, stay off this thread. There are still magnificent questions waiting for your answer here - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-344297.32.html