butterflylion:


Numbers themselves ARE SYMBOLS! 1234567890 , I, II, III, IV, V VI VII VIII, IX, X are all symbols WITH NAMES ASCRIBED TO THEM.

hope you get it now.

That's why we are not talking about symbols cos it contains alot of characters and also has different meaning, we a talking of a particular thing "number"
Stop switching positions

obinna58:


That's why we are not talking about symbols cos it contains alot of characters and also has different meaning, we a talking of a particular thing "number"
Stop switching positions

Can you show me how and where I switched positions? When struggling with an argument calmly walk away when you are lost and stop accusing me of switching positions.

Numbers are symbols! The numbers that people use are completely arbitrary symbols. Their meaning is assigned by general consensus.

Someone had to invent the symbol and then assign it a meaning, and the meaning stuck throughout the centuries, so that's the meaning we assign to it today.

I repeat, numbers exist as long as what they are assigned to exist!

Numbers are symbols with names and those symbols (numbers) are inextricably linked to what they are attached to.

butterflylion:


The word indeterminate being a word in existence was created for such a purpose as this. When something is indeterminate it means [s]in a broad sense that what would enable its determination is unavailable so it [/s] cannot be defined or established within the known parameters available.


indeterminate
adjective
not exactly known, established, or defined.

Confusing yourself, I have fixed it for you - this is only when what you wrote fits your definition.
Learn to be sincere.

This can only be true if that God was never said to be eternal and also this would be true if the universe was also said to be eternal but science has proven that the universe BEGAN AT SOME POINT. the eternal universe claim is science fiction and no credible scientist looks at it twice because it can, never be scientifically proven. Why this is an impossible thing for science to prove is because for proof to be available then our known universe must be able to overlap another multiverse at some point and we should be able to identify where and when they overlapped and you and I know that is an impossibility. Plus the string theory which hypothesises some of this can also not be proven.

I mentioned that the universe is suppose to have a beginning. Anything that have existence must have a beginning. When we don't know that beginning, then we can assume such thing existed from time indefinite

You do realise that there is always a reason behind the creation of words. Finite was created for sake of limit. Infinity was created for sake of limitlessness. Same way eternal is. Man is a finite being so because we are finite beings we are limited in our concept of eternity. If there was a man who has ever lived since sciences touted big bang then such a man would have been in a better position to give a deeper insight of what eternal looks like because he has tasted a much larger portion of mans finite time.

lack of knowledge brought about some concepts such as god and eternal existence. I won't go into big bang with you cos it is evident you are ignorant about it's theories.

I am manufacturing nothing! time isn't simply time . Time was there before our time began! Simple. Our time did not just begin, it began within something else that was already there and existing! It just simply took a part of that which was already there before it came especially since it exists within that which already existed, it's only logical to have some of the attributes of that which it exists within.

No, time is an inexistent existence that existed outside what existed before the universe began to exist. So within the existence of the universe was when the human construct known as time which was indeterminate, resulted to an unknown time which we define as the eternal.
You are not the only one gifted in posting trash and creating false definitions and constructs out of existing and defined entities.

It's logical thinking and not wishful. I only said it due to your eternal universe or multiverse assumption and since we exist within the limits of our observable universe and you spoke of an eternal universe or a multiverse how then am I being a wishful thinker for saying that other life forms may exist in other multiverses and also talking about their own observable universe. Or do you think it's our own universe they would observe while being confined to theirs?

speaking of other life forms is illogical in this context. Humans have not been able to fully understand this life and you are introducing other life forms. You just want to touch everywhere yet you are nowhere

Animals respond to what terms we determine as man. For man 10 years is 10 years. For animals, 10 years is 10 years and so on and the reason is because we are the intelligent ones and we determined what time should look like and we see animals from the view of what we have determined. But an intelligent life form much like man in another universe would not agree with us simply because their universe would offer them something different from what ours holds.

I would have love to discuss this Hollywood movie of other intelligent life forms but it's unfortunate I don't watch movies.

But you are already discussing the eternal universe which was meant to fully justify evolution or did you not know this?


Fair enough! Since you do not know does this not then confirm that our observations are limited to our observable universe?

no where in evolution theory mentioned about an eternal universe. Like I said before, leave evolution out of this cos theist are known to quote evolution and big bang out of contest.

The case of I don't know does not apply to theists. They are extraterrestrial beings that can explain things beyond human and scientific limitation.

author=chemystery post=60119768]
Confusing yourself, I have fixed it for you - this is only when what you wrote fits your definition.
Learn to be sincere

.

You make me laugh. Definitions are always expanded upon based on the context it fits and I expanded on it but you think definitions are applicable in a strict pattern when meanings and context still exist in English This was why I said "in a broad sense".

I mentioned that the universe is suppose to have a beginning. Anything that have existence must have a beginning. When we don't know that beginning, then we can assume such thing existed from time indefinite

You are confusing yourself! How can you first say due to the indeterminate nature of the universe then the universe is said to be eternal and now you are saying the universe has a beginning what part of eternal do you not understand?

lack of knowledge brought about some concepts such as god and eternal existence. I won't go into big bang with you cos it is evident you are ignorant about it's theories

.

Why would you not go into big bang? You think I am ignorant yet I just showed you how the multiverse is silly.

No, time is an inexistent existence that existed outside what existed before the universe began to exist. So within the existence of the universe was when the human construct known as time which was indeterminate, resulted to an unknown time which we define as the eternal.
You are not the only one gifted in posting trash and creating false definitions and constructs out of existing and defined entities

.


Thanks for calling your own comment trash! You really need to stop and think.

let me make it simple. Children exist so parents exist! Children who are conceived are conceived within the confines of their already existing carriers (man). So children coming into existence have aspects of the already existing carrier in them (CAUSE AND EFFECT) time did not just begin, it had to be caused by something which determined it's nature. This nature is what we in our own way have developed a means of measurement for. This measurement of time gave us an idea of what finite and infinity means and why they must exist as words in use.

Man is finite but understands that the time we see is within another much larger time we cannot fathom.

speaking of other life forms is illogical in this context. Humans have not been able to fully understand this life and you are introducing other life forms. You just want to touch everywhere yet you are nowhere

Then why did you mention an eternal universe?

Your statement here still echoes the fact I said earlier and that is that man is limited to what our observable universe has to offer.

I would have love to discuss this Hollywood movie of other intelligent life forms but it's unfortunate I don't watch movies.

But you watch sci-fi that talks about multiverse

no where in evolution theory mentioned about an eternal universe. Like I said before, leave evolution out of this cos theist are known to quote evolution and big bang out of contest

.

It's obvious with this comment of yours you know zero about evolution. If you did then you would have known that the multiverse hypothesis aka eternal universe hypothesis was simply an attempt to explain evolution and replace creation with it.

The case of I don't know does not apply to theists. They are extraterrestrial beings that can explain things beyond human and scientific limitation.

When did I say it applies to theists? You are just making goalpost shifting comments everywhere. All I did was apply the same "who created God" logic on the eternal universe you mentioned by asking "who created the universe".

Please try not to shift goalposts again

Best football pick for today

WC Qual. UEFA
Montenegro - Romania
Pick: 1
Odd: 2.45

For daily football prediction
WhatsApp 08122517959

butterflylion:
.

You make me laugh. Definitions are always expanded upon based on the context it fits and I expanded on it but you think definitions are applicable in a strict pattern when meanings and context still exist in English This was why I said "in a broad sense".






You are confusing yourself! How can you first say due to the indeterminate nature of the universe then the universe is said to be eternal and now you are saying the universe has a beginning what part of eternal do you not understand?



.

Why would you not go into big bang? You think I am ignorant yet I just showed you how the multiverse is silly.


.


Thanks for calling your own comment trash! You really need to stop and think.

let me make it simple. Children exist so parents exist! Children who are conceived are conceived within the confines of their already existing carriers (man). So children coming into existence have aspects of the already existing carrier in them (CAUSE AND EFFECT) time did not just begin, it had to be caused by something which determined it's nature. This nature is what we in our own way have developed a means of measurement for. This measurement of time gave us an idea of what finite and infinity means and why they must exist as words in use.

Man is finite but understands that the time we see is within another much larger time we cannot fathom.



Then why did you mention an eternal universe?

Your statement here still echoes the fact I said earlier and that is that man is limited to what our observable universe has to offer.




But you watch sci-fi that talks about multiverse


.

It's obvious with this comment of yours you know zero about evolution. If you did then you would have known that the multiverse hypothesis aka eternal universe hypothesis was simply an attempt to explain evolution and replace creation with it.





When did I say it applies to theists? You are just making goalpost shifting comments everywhere. All I did was apply the same "who created God" logic on the eternal universe you mentioned by asking "who created the universe".

Please try not to shift goalposts again

Then why will I take you serious when you keep expanding definitions to suit your selfish interest. I don't engage in argument that brings insincerity in. When you erase the true definition of things or concept, it skews the basis of the argument.

The question of the post is if god created the universe, who created god?
If god was not created, why can't we say so for the universe.

butterflylion:



Can you show me how and where I switched positions? When struggling with an argument calmly walk away when you are lost and stop accusing me of switching positions.

Numbers are symbols! The numbers that people use are completely arbitrary symbols. Their meaning is assigned by general consensus.

Someone had to invent the symbol and then assign it a meaning, and the meaning stuck throughout the centuries, so that's the meaning we assign to it today.

I repeat, numbers exist as long as what they are assigned to exist!

Numbers are symbols with names and those symbols (numbers) are inextricably linked to what they are attached to.

Numbers is simply an arithmetical value representing a particular quantity and can be used in counting and making calculations but can only be expressed as symbols
Symbol differs, number doesn't, once you hear the word number you know what to be expecting
Number and symbol doesn't mean exact same thing and both can't be proven either,
that something is representing an idea doesn't mean it exist, the idea possibly has it own name

never read a more self-contradictory article. you say it is impossible for nothing to produce something, but you believe that god (something) came from nothing because some holy book that was written by mortals and riddled with errors implied so. how convenient.



i could also argue that the universe is eternal and independent of time or space, and therefore "God" , because MY holy book said so .

chemystery:

Then why will I take you serious when you keep expanding definitions to suit your selfish interest. I don't engage in argument that brings insincerity in. When you erase the true definition of things or concept, it skews the basis of the argument.

The question of the post is if god created the universe, who created god?
If god was not created, why can't we say so for the universe.

Again you talk confused! Go look at context and meaning in English then come back and recant this post because mine contains zero INSINCERITY as all I did was work with the information you provided based on your words on an eternal universe being so due to its indeterminate nature.

Also you shift goalposts at will.

Your words in bold simply show your confusion further. First you said the indeterminate nature of the universe makes it eternal and next you said the universe has a beginning (which the word beginning is a clear contrast of the word eternal) and here now you ask " if God was not created, why then cant we say so about the universe" which is you claiming the universe is eternal again because God is eternal. Goalpost shifting everywhere

Do you doubt cause and effect? Is the universe a conscious being? Can you say the universe decided to arrive on the scene?

If cause and effect is a scientific law based on our human observations, would you say the observable universe which you also agree to be within our limited by the use of the word INDETERMINATE, never subscribed to being an effect of a cause?

obinna58:

Numbers is simply an arithmetical value representing a particular quantity and can be used in counting and making calculations but can only be expressed as symbols
Symbol differs, number doesn't, once you hear the word number you know what to be expecting
Number and symbol doesn't mean exact same thing and both can be proven either,
that something is representing an idea doesn't mean it exist, the idea possibly has it own name

Oga number 1 is a symbol. And so are 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 . These symbols were given names to set them apart for a specific mathematical purpose.

The items the numbers are used to represent are not ideas but truly existing items. Like I said, numbers exist because the objects they represent exist.

I wonder who told you that numbers are not symbols?

ModusOperandi:
never read a more self-contradictory article. you say it is impossible for nothing to produce something, but you believe that god (something) came from nothing because some holy book that was written by mortals and riddled with errors implied so. how convenient.



i could also argue that the universe is eternal and independent of time or space, and therefore "God" , because MY holy book said so .

What destroys your whole statement here is one word... ETERNAL!

the God we speak about is known to be an eternal being and since science confirms that the universe has a beginning then the universe cannot be used as a measure for eternity because it is not eternal. Simple.

Since the universe has a beginning then something must have caused it to begin according to scientific law. Nothing can begin to exist without being caused to begin to exist however God does not fit into the definition of "to begin to exist" because GOD IS ETERNAL and eternal means without beginning and without end while to begin to exist talks about a point of reality.

That which existed before the universe is what we term as God and science knows that something did exist before the universe and this something caused the universe to be but refuse to give it a name or acknowledge that this thing is God but their position does not erase the fact that something existed before owr known universe began.

butterflylion:
.

You make me laugh. Definitions are always expanded upon based on the context it fits and I expanded on it but you think definitions are applicable in a strict pattern when meanings and context still exist in English This was why I said "in a broad sense".

You own selfish broad sense!

You are confusing yourself! How can you first say due to the indeterminate nature of the universe then the universe is said to be eternal and now you are saying the universe has a beginning what part of eternal do you not understand?

I will explain in my field. In electronics engineering, we assume an ideal op-amp should have an infinite open loop gain. But in reality, it has a relatively large value. This assumption helps us determine the properties of this op-amp. But in reality, the open loop gain has a relatively large variable and unknown value. In reality, nothing can exists without a beginning, else such thing is inexistent.



.

Why would you not go into big bang? You think I am ignorant yet I just showed you how the multiverse is silly.

you have shown NOTHING!


.

Thanks for calling your own comment trash! You really need to stop and think.

I will say it again for sake of sincerity, it is trash but I also want to tell you you ain't the only one gifted in posting trash. I can't be wasting my time making sense while you keep posting trash.
When you start making sense, then we can move together.

let me make it simple. Children exist so parents exist! Children who are conceived are conceived within the confines of their already existing carriers (man). So children coming into existence have aspects of the already existing carrier in them (CAUSE AND EFFECT) time did not just begin, it had to be caused by something which determined it's nature. This nature is what we in our own way have developed a means of measurement for. This measurement of time gave us an idea of what finite and infinity means and why they must exist as words in use.

Man is finite but understands that the time we see is within another much larger time we cannot fathom.

yet you know there is a time we cannot decipher? How did you know this?
Well, there is another universe too that we cannot fathom. And gusee what? There are humans there as well. Let's continue with the trash!

Then why did you mention an eternal universe?

Your statement here still echoes the fact I said earlier and that is that man is limited to what our observable universe has to offer.

check my explanation of ideal op-amp!

But you watch sci-fi that talks about multiverse


.

It's obvious with this comment of yours you know zero about evolution. If you did then you would have known that the multiverse hypothesis aka eternal universe hypothesis was simply an attempt to explain evolution and replace creation with it.

if you know about evolution and can prove it wrong, why not go out there and do so and claim your noble prize?

[/quote]When did I say it applies to theists? You are just making goalpost shifting comments everywhere. All I did was apply the same "who created God" logic on the eternal universe you mentioned by asking "who created the universe".

Please try not to shift goalposts again

why then do you keep explaining things you claim you don't know and that human knowledge is limited to. Yet you keep explaining them with all authority

butterflylion:


Oga number 1 is a symbol. And so are 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 . These symbols were given names to set them apart for a specific mathematical purpose.

The items the numbers are used to represent are not ideas but truly existing items. Like I said, numbers exist because the objects they represent exist.

I wonder who told you that numbers are not symbols?

Show me where I stated that numbers are not symbols, seem like u don't have anything more to say
There objects they represent do exist, Objects like numbers do exist

chemystery:
if you think evolution is wrong, then go and disprove it scientifically

You haven't ponder why the theory hasn't been dropped whereas we have lots of religious scientists. Why? Because its theory and scientific evidence holds water.

Until you or anyone else disprove evolution scientifically other than applying wishful thinking of what life is suppose to be, then you should simply deal with it as the fact!

fact ke, it is no fact, science like religion just want to hold on to something. where have they found an organism evolving into another? they don't have a single fact but assumptions and pass it as law. because they hate the idea of God like you.
tell me have you or anyone ever seen one organism evolved? did they not go against fact that DNA copy exactly is copy.
and who told you evolution theory is generally accepted? even scientists disagree within themselves. you are just laying hold of something you understand not please get your facts right before you get too lost

butterflylion:



What destroys your whole statement here is one word... ETERNAL!

the God we speak about is known to be an eternal being and since science confirms that the universe has a beginning then the universe cannot be used as a measure for eternity because it is not eternal. Simple

you have earlier claimed our knowledge of this is limited. How come you keep explaining what your knowledge is limited to? Who knows god as eternal and what proof was used to back this up? God is either existing or not. If he is existing, how did he come into existence?

Since the universe has a beginning then something must have caused it to begin according to scientific law. Nothing can begin to exist without being caused to begin to exist however God does not fit into the definition of "to begin to exist" because GOD IS ETERNAL and eternal means without beginning and without end while to begin to exist talks about a point of reality.

nothing can exist out of nothing yet something called god existed out of nothing.
This is insincerity! And I don't think I can continue with this cos it will eventually lead to nowhere!
It is like arguing with someone who said "one with disease lack good health. But good health on its own is a type of disease!"

That which existed before the universe is what we term as God and science knows that something did exist before the universe and this something caused the universe to be but refuse to give it a name or acknowledge that this thing is God but their position does not erase the fact that something existed before own known universe began.

I think you are talking of the big bang that was propounded by theists. Of course, they know that something is not god. Those who called that something god are those shy to I DONT KNOW

author=chemystery post=60121350]You own selfish broad sense!

It's called context and not selfishness. Use it sometimes Okay?

I will explain in my field. In electronics engineering, we assume an ideal op-amp should have an infinite open loop gain. But in reality, it has a relatively large value. This assumption helps us determine the properties of this op-amp. But in reality, the open loop gain has a relatively large variable and unknown value. In reality, nothing can exists without a beginning, else such thing is inexistent

.

Your comment here has explained time and it's measurement to you but you didn't realise it.

I told you that the time we know is used as measure which enables a sneak peek into a time we cannot measure based on the available observable parameters we are exposed to. In my chat with Obinna about numbers I told him that we know eternity exists because even man creates eternal situations just like your infinite open loop gain. Man KNOWS eternity exists because even they create it in their own small given platforms and you just gave me yours in electronics engineering.





.

you have shown NOTHING!

I never expected you to say anything else but this


.

I will say it again for sake of sincerity, it is trash but I also want to tell you you ain't the only one gifted in posting trash. I can't be wasting my time making sense while you keep posting trash.
When you start making sense, then we can move together.

yet you know there is a time we cannot decipher? How did you know this?
Well, there is another universe too that we cannot fathom. And gusee what? There are humans there as well. Let's continue with the trash!



check my explanation of ideal op-amp

!

Check my response to your electronics engineering.

if you know about evolution and can prove it wrong, why not go out there and do so and claim your noble prize?

Goalpost shifting again! We are talking about your eternal universe and evolution only came in because you began the eternal universe talk and since you did not know that the eternal universe hypothesis was an attempt to use it to explain evolution I simply told you.



When did I say it applies to theists? You are just making goalpost shifting comments everywhere. All I did was apply the same "who created God" logic on the eternal universe you mentioned by asking "who created the universe".

Please try not to shift goalposts again :Dwhy then do you keep explaining things you claim you don't know and that human knowledge is limited to. Yet you keep explaining them with all authority

I explained all I did in a way I expected you would relate with as an atheist and that is LOGICALLY. or is logic dead?

butterflylion:


Again you talk confused! Go look at context and meaning in English then come back and recant this post because mine contains zero INSINCERITY as all I did was work with the information you provided based on your words on an eternal universe being so due to its indeterminate nature.

Also you shift goalposts at will.

Your words in bold simply show your confusion further. First you said the indeterminate nature of the universe makes it eternal and next you said the universe has a beginning (which the word beginning is a clear contrast of the word eternal) and here now you ask " if God was not created, why then cant we say so about the universe" which is you claiming the universe is eternal again because God is eternal. Goalpost shifting everywhere

Do you doubt cause and effect? Is the universe a conscious being? Can you say the universe decided to arrive on the scene?

If cause and effect is a scientific law based on our human observations, would you say the observable universe which you also agree to be within our limited by the use of the word INDETERMINATE, never subscribed to being an effect of a cause?

Well, I don't know if the universe is eternal or not. The basis of the argument is this:
Those who don't know yet claim they know would not admit they don't know yet claim god created the universe without proof. Just because nothing can't exist without being created. But this conclusion will not hold water without god being created! Any argument against this would be a total insincerity.

The truth remains, I don't know how the universe came into existence, and no one knows. How do I know they don’t know? They don’t possess faculties I do not, they don’t have senses I don’t, they fear what I fear; They run from what I run from. They are faced with the same limitations like me. They are humans and not extraterrestrial being

author=chemystery post=60121797]you have earlier claimed our knowledge of this is limited. How come you keep explaining what your knowledge is limited to? Who knows god as eternal and what proof was used to back this up? God is either existing or not. If he is existing, how did he come into existence?

Repeating the same message with different words still does not change its message. We already went through this above and here you are repeating same thing. SMH.

Your asking for proof still goes to buttress my words on man being limited to our observable universe and it also further exposed the struggle you have to understand the concept of the word ETERNAL!

nothing can exist out of nothing yet something called god existed out of nothing.
This is insincerity! And I don't think I can continue with this cos it will eventually lead to nowhere!
It is like arguing with someone who said "one with disease lack good health. But good health on its own is a type of disease!"

Let me phrase your comment properly, NOTHING CAN BEGIN TO EXIST OUT OF NOTHING. You left out the word BEGIN. To exist is a state of being and does not have time attached to it. But because God is eternal we say to BEGIN to exist to other things and not to God because ETERNAL means no beginning of existence and no end to existence.

Regarding your philosophical quote, you cannot say good health is a disease because the word GOOD is already evident while man sees disease as BAD.

I think you are talking of the big bang that was propounded by theists. Of course, they know that something is not god. Those who called that something god are those shy to I DONT KNOW

shifting goalposts to theists being the proponent of the big bang just to sway the argument is a show of desperation! Stick to the argument. The Big Bang was used to further the cause of evolution and the multiverse/ eternal universe was now attempted to be used to replace an eternal God.

butterflylion:


Oga number 1 is a symbol. And so are 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 . These symbols were given names to set them apart for a specific mathematical purpose.

The items the numbers are used to represent are not ideas but truly existing items. Like I said, numbers exist because the objects they represent exist.

I wonder who told you that numbers are not symbols?

You can only say that the name of the idea being represented by symbol exist but not symbol
Symbol is nothing but only a "word"

author=chemystery post=60122139]
Well, I don't know if the universe is eternal or not

You do not know yet in your opening argument with me you said and I quote "the indeterminate nature of the universe makes it eternal". why then are you now recanting?

.

The basis of the argument is this:
Those who don't know yet claim they know would not admit they don't know yet claim god created the universe without proof. Just because nothing can't exist without being created. But this conclusion will not hold water without god being created! Any argument against this would be a total insincerity

Well there are people who do know and science supports them. Science agrees and has determined that something caused the universe to begin existing. People call this thing God. You are free to call it whatever gives you joy but whatever you call it or do not call it does not change the fact that it was there before our known universe began.

The truth remains, I don't know how the universe came into existence, and no one knows. How do I know they don’t know? They don’t possess faculties I do not, they don’t have senses I don’t, they fear what I fear; They run from what I run from. They are faced with the same limitations like me. They are humans and not extraterrestrial being

Whether you know or not does not change the fact that it began at some point and something caused it's existence.

All you just said in bold still further Buttresses my point about limitations and since science does not exist without people whom you just said are limited, do you now agree that science is limited based of your words in bold?

butterflylion:



What destroys your whole statement here is one word... ETERNAL!

the God we speak about is known to be an eternal being and since science confirms that the universe has a beginning then the universe cannot be used as a measure for eternity because it is not eternal. Simple.

Since the universe has a beginning then something must have caused it to begin according to scientific law. Nothing can begin to exist without being caused to begin to exist however God does not fit into the definition of "to begin to exist" because GOD IS ETERNAL and eternal means without beginning and without end while to begin to exist talks about a point of reality.

That which existed before the universe is what we term as God and science knows that something did exist before the universe and this something caused the universe to be but refuse to give it a name or acknowledge that this thing is God but their position does not erase the fact that something existed before owr known universe began.

the last paragraph of my post was me speaking hypothetically. your/the op's argument completely relies on the validity of the bible which science has proven to be unreliable, so it is therefore rendered moot.



anyway I think the op actually directed his post at Christians that are still confused about the origin of God, so I'll take my leave

obinna58:

You can only say that the name of the idea being represented by symbol exist but not symbol
Symbol is nothing but only a "word"

As you are today can you call 10 to be two? Can you call 200 to be twelve?

The symbol and the name are inextricably linked. I do not know how to say this to you again.

Without a symbol there is no name to give!!!

ModusOperandi:
the last paragraph of my post was me speaking hypothetically. your/the op's argument completely relies on the validity of the bible which science has proven to be unreliable, so it is therefore rendered moot.



anyway I think the op actually directed his post at Christians that are still confused about the origin of God, so I'll take my leave

Sorry but science has actually validated the Bible and still does.

Bye bye

butterflylion:


It's called context and not selfishness. Use it sometimes Okay?

OK, in your own selfish context.



.

Your comment here has explained time and it's measurement to you but you didn't realise it.

I told you that the time we know is used as measure which enables a sneak peek into a time we cannot measure based on the available observable parameters we are exposed to. In my chat with Obinna about numbers I told him that we know eternity exists because even man creates eternal situations just like your infinite open loop gain. Man KNOWS eternity exists because even they create it in their own small given platforms and you just gave me yours in electronics engineering.

I have always define time as a human construct to distinguish between the past and present. If man created infinite and eternity as well as indeterminate, then we are the ones that gave created gods attribute as eternal since our own construct of time can be measured numerically. And any numeric value that grows beyond human limitation can be assumed as infinite!





.

I never expected you to say anything else but this

You don't have choice, it's a fact!


.

!

Check my response to your electronics engineering.





Goalpost shifting again! We are talking about your eternal universe and evolution only came in because you began the eternal universe talk and since you did not know that the eternal universe hypothesis was an attempt to use it to explain evolution I simply told you.

You call it an attempt. Why not go out and disprove it and claim your noble prize.

When did I say it applies to theists? You are just making goalpost shifting comments everywhere. All I did was apply the same "who created God" logic on the eternal universe you mentioned by asking "who created the universe".


I explained all I did in a way I expected you would relate with as an atheist and that is LOGICALLY. or is logic dead?

it is a known fact god is eternal because the bible said so. How is that logical. You need an urgent review of why you define as logical

author=chemystery post=60122781]
OK, in your own selfish context.



.

I have always define time as a human construct to distinguish between the past and present. If man created infinite and eternity as well as indeterminate, then we are the ones that gave created gods attribute as eternal since our own construct of time can be measured numerically. And any numeric value that grows beyond human limitation can be assumed as infinite!

MEASURABLE TIME is a human construct and not what it was designed to measure. Time was already existing indefinitely before a measure was designed to measure within our limits for our benefit.




.

You don't have choice, it's a fact!


.



You call it an attempt. Why not go out and disprove it and claim your noble prize.

it is a known fact god is eternal because the bible said so. How is that logical. You need an urgent review of why you define as logical

Here you are deliberately trying to shift the goalpost again when what I said was ,

When did I say it applies to theists? You are just making goalpost shifting comments everywhere. All I did was apply the same "who created God" logic on the eternal universe you mentioned by asking "who created the universe"

.


Stop being dishonest oga and stop shifting goalposts at random. I have told you this 3 times now.

butterflylion:


You do not know yet in your opening argument with me you said and I quote "the indeterminate nature of the universe makes it eternal". why then are you now recanting?

I don't know how the universe came about but I know no one knows how and when. Hence making it indeterminate.

.

Well there are people who do know and science supports them. Science agrees and has determined that something caused the universe to begin existing. People call this thing God. You are free to call it whatever gives you joy but whatever you call it or do not call it does not change the fact that it was there before our known universe began.

calling it god is a cheap answer and an attempt to close window of further research. I cannot calling it anything cos that is not scientific. Everything must be well define with proof and facts!

Whether you know or not does not change the fact that it began at some point and something caused it's existence.

I agree! This is a general truth and anything that exists must agree to this including god (if it exists)

All you just said in bold still further Buttresses my point about limitations and since science does not exist without people whom you just said are limited, do you now agree that science is limited based of your words in bold?

I would have agreed to this but you seem to be an exception to this rule.

[quote author=butterflylion post=60122210]

Repeating the same message with different words still does not change its message. We already went through this above and here you are repeating same thing. SMH.

Your asking for proof still goes to buttress my words on man being limited to our observable universe and it also further exposed the struggle you have to understand the concept of the word ETERNAL!

Avoidance!

Let me phrase your comment properly, NOTHING CAN BEGIN TO EXIST OUT OF NOTHING. You left out the word BEGIN. To exist is a state of being and does not have time attached to it. But because God is eternal we say to BEGIN to exist to other things and not to God because ETERNAL means no beginning of existence and no end to existence.

How can you say nothing can begin to exist out of nothing, yet something called god began to exists out of nothing. You play of words cannot salvage the fact that it is an illogical argument for you to state a general truth and immediately contradict yourself.

Regarding your philosophical quote, you cannot say good health is a disease because the word GOOD is already evident while man sees disease as BAD.

this is just an analogy to show you how illogical you have been arguing. I'm glad you have seen it!

shifting goalposts to theists being the proponent of the big bang just to sway the argument is a show of desperation! Stick to the argument. The Big Bang was used to further the cause of evolution and the multiverse/ eternal universe was now attempted to be used to replace an eternal God.

the topic here is not big bang or evolution. I never mentioned any of that. You introduced them yourself

author=chemystery post=60123082]
I don't know how the universe came about but I know no one knows how and when. Hence making it indeterminate

.

Indeterminate is not a word to use for the universe when science says it has a beginning and this beginning was 13.772 billion years ago. Is science wrong?
.

calling it god is a cheap answer and an attempt to close window of further research. I cannot calling it anything cos that is not scientific. Everything must be well define with proof and facts!

Calling anything God does not close any window to research. It rather opens it up wider after all ever since the name "God" began scientific discoveries have never ceased including from theists. Remember you said theists brought about the big bang theory? So how come the word "God" didn't stop their research?

I agree! This is a general truth and anything that exists must agree to this including god (if it exists)

I already explained to you that with God there is a difference. God exists without a beginning and end but other things exist within the confines of beginning and end.

I would have agreed to this but you seem to be an exception to this rule.

How can I be an exception to this rule when you clearly said and I quote,

"The truth remains, I don't know how the universe came into existence, and no one knows. How do I know they don’t know? They don’t possess faculties I do not, they don’t have senses I don’t, they fear what I fear; They run from what I run from. They are faced with the same limitations like me. They are humans and not extraterrestrial being"

Am I still an exception to the rule?

butterflylion:



MEASURABLE TIME is a human construct and not what it was designed to measure. Time was already existing indefinitely before a measure was designed to measure within our limits for our benefit.

you are tempting me to say my own trash out of wishful thought but I won't




.

Here you are deliberately trying to shift the goalpost again when what I said was ,

.


Stop being dishonest oga and stop shifting goalposts at random. I have told you this 3 times now.

for you to quote your own posts, I thin you are confused that you type without knowing what you have typed. I think you need a nap. You are the one shifting goal post

author=chemystery post=60123579]you are tempting me to say my own trash out of wishful thought but I won't

Admit it you have nothing to say


.

for you to quote your own posts, I thin you are confused that you type without knowing what you have typed. I think you need a nap. You are the one shifting goal post

I had to bring back that quote to keep you on track since you began to stray. Are you projecting thoughts on me by assuming I need a nap? I have been the one who has been more lucid than you have been so far. I suggest you take a 30 minute break and grab some lunch.

butterflylion:
.

Indeterminate is not a word to use for the universe when science says it has a beginning and this beginning was 13.772 billion years ago. Is science wrong?

There is however uncertainty base on that value. Meanwhile, it's a good start agreeing that the universe is about billion years old against the bible chronological proof of less than 10,000 years. That's a good start!

Calling anything God does not close any window to research. It rather opens it up wider after all ever since the name "God" began scientific discoveries have never ceased including from theists. Remember you said theists brought about the big bang theory? So how come the word "God" didn't stop their research?

if science had close the window for further research, you would have believed the earth is <10,000 years old, and that snakes eat dusts too. The god theory is there to give cheap answers but science is disproving them all!

I already explained to you that with God there is a difference. God exists without a beginning and end but other things exist within the confines of beginning and end.

explanation out of wishful thinking. Is it by saying something cannot exist out of nothing but something called god existed out of nothing? RIP logic!

How can I be an exception to this rule when you clearly said and I quote,


Am I still an exception to the rule?

No you an exception o. Have you forgotten? You are an extraterrestrial being that can explain things beyond human limitation.

butterflylion:


Admit it you have nothing to say

Yes, especially to trash invented in course of an argument


.

I had to bring back that quote to keep you on track since you began to stray. Are you projecting thoughts on me by assuming I need a nap? I have been the one who has been more lucid than you have been so far. I suggest you take a 30 minute break and grab some lunch.