A Personal Message To DeepSight and thehomer

A closer analysis of your profile names reveals a lot; but TIME LIMITS ME from fully expressing it. However I must undertake the task.

For DeepSight

DeepSight >>> you are truly deep. I submit to you that anytime I praised you >>> It was because your ideas resonated with the core message at the heart of all theistic religions (especially with Christianity) That there is an assumed first cause. 

Here ! These are your words ! 

Scientific laws do not exist in a vacuum.
You still have to address the founding question before you can discuss anything - 

Why something instead of nothing?

Read them and ponder upon the meaning as it relates to what I now submit to you:

 The problem of religion is tasking itself as TO WHAT the attributes of a cause is ? Deists realize that there is a cause BUT they do not ask WHAT the cause is. By now you should realize that only 1 answer ultimately exists for every question *think 0 and 1*

The one time I recall very specifically getting annoyed with you is when you with my disagreed with my posit that Atheism Is A Religion. I was not irked by the fact that you disagreed.  It was how you disagreed. I clearly recite my last statement to you with these words

if my statement MEANS NOTHING treat it as such

but I percieve that my statement meant something. It was a message that was clearly misunderstood by you and all other people who castigated me (excepting the Theists). The game we call life, is limited by our observation of the fact that what is not PERCEPTIBLE to the senses is not made evident. It falls on the human mind to find other means by which this is done.  This is why accessibility options are created. This is the means by which a PROGRAM can be specifically implemented, to attend the needs of the blind, deaf, dumb and mute *think Helen Keller*

It is the mistake of the deist to assume a first cause and not task his mind on what the attributes of that cause IS/ARE (this is what science is based upon - cause and effect, as well as attributes that are ascribed to both of 'em). This is at the root of what we call SCIENCE.

I submit to you that the cause (error) of the science-religion debate is this. The idea (science) is mistaken for the implementation of that idea (the scientific method). 

A man who seeks for a scientific discovery is no different from the man who seeks SOMETHING he does not fully know (i.e the state of being ignorant) to get something he fully understands (HAS COME TO LIGHT). The path of knowledge is a journey that already has be flown through by faith. Faith believes because it exists outside of time. Science believes and works out the details in space (I choose not to not mention time because TIME is a thing of the mind)  The problem is that working out details takes a long time. 

To experiment: try and write a story. I dare you to work out all the DETAILS of the story b4 u write it. You will forget. 

DEEPSIGHT - I submit to you that Religion is the the very idea that animates science - Cause and Effect. Science is the implementation of religion the same way a cause is implemented thru it's effect. 

Finally, I erred in every sense of the word ERROR. Because I was in the light. I forgot that light is perceived in different shades. The existence of colours as empirically demonstrated by Physicists is empirical proof of my claim.

IDEAlly speaking; I was basking in the sun and forgot to enjoy the colors. And I perciEVE (in space) that you did just the opposite (ergo your mistake)

You looked at the colors and forgot the sunlight.

Note physical experiment ISAAC NEWTON performed: 
He demonstrated that a light can be exposed in different shades because of points in space. 
He did this using a prism. 
The idea of prism was birthed in Egypt.

 
I have much more to write. But I end with these words from the Father of the scientific method

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts: but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties."

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

- Francis Bacon Snr (for your INFORMATION he was a trained lawyer)

my final words to you is as important as it is IDEAl:

[url=http://A man is an idea that SEEKS to express itself]A man is an idea that SEEKS to express itself[/url]

Via Aristotle's Law of contraDICTION I can ideally deduce with all accuracy

God is man that has not been FOUND in TIME
Hint - U appear to understand (unlike thehomer) that time is an uncaused cause)

Once more, I submit to you that the Elusinerean mystics were taught ways by which God could be approached solely by means of logic. And it took a Greek man named Socrates to broadcast this truth.

to be continued. I"ll be back. Meanwhile watch out for my online series here on the Religion section

Uyi Iredia:

A Personal Message To DeepSight and thehomer

A closer analysis of your profile names reveals a lot; but TIME LIMITS ME from fully expressing it. However I must undertake the task.

For DeepSight

DeepSight >>> you are truly deep. I submit to you that anytime I praised you >>> It was because your ideas resonated with the core message at the heart of all theistic religions (especially with Christianity) That there is an assumed first cause. 

Here ! These are your words ! 

Read them and ponder upon the meaning as it relates to what I now submit to you:

 The problem of religion is tasking itself as TO WHAT the attributes of a cause is ? Deists realize that there is a cause BUT they do not ask WHAT the cause is. By now you should realize that only 1 answer ultimately exists for every question *think 0 and 1*

The one time I recall very specifically getting annoyed with you is when you with my disagreed with my posit that Atheism Is A Religion. I was not irked by the fact that you disagreed.  It was how you disagreed. I clearly recite my last statement to you with these words

if my statement MEANS NOTHING treat it as such

but I percieve that my statement meant something. It was a message that was clearly misunderstood by you and all other people who castigated me (excepting the Theists). The game we call life, is limited by our observation of the fact that what is not PERCEPTIBLE to the senses is not made evident. It falls on the human mind to find other means by which this is done.  This is why accessibility options are created. This is the means by which a PROGRAM can be specifically implemented, to attend the needs of the blind, deaf, dumb and mute *think Helen Keller*

It is the mistake of the deist to assume a first cause and not task his mind on what the attributes of that cause IS/ARE (this is what science is based upon - cause and effect, as well as attributes that are ascribed to both of 'em). This is at the root of what we call SCIENCE.

I submit to you that the cause (error) of the science-religion debate is this. The idea (science) is mistaken for the implementation of that idea (the scientific method). 

A man who seeks for a scientific discovery is no different from the man who seeks SOMETHING he does not fully know (i.e the state of being ignorant) to get something he fully understands (HAS COME TO LIGHT). The path of knowledge is a journey that already has be flown through by faith. Faith believes because it exists outside of time. Science believes and works out the details in space (I choose not to not mention time because TIME is a thing of the mind)  The problem is that working out details takes a long time. 

To experiment: try and write a story. I dare you to work out all the DETAILS of the story b4 u write it. You will forget. 

DEEPSIGHT - I submit to you that Religion is the the very idea that animates science - Cause and Effect. Science is the implementation of religion the same way a cause is implemented thru it's effect. 

Finally, I erred in every sense of the word ERROR. Because I was in the light. I forgot that light is perceived in different shades. The existence of colours as empirically demonstrated by Physicists is empirical proof of my claim.

IDEAlly speaking; I was basking in the sun and forgot to enjoy the colors. And I perciEVE (in space) that you did just the opposite (ergo your mistake)

You looked at the colors and forgot the sunlight.

Note physical experiment ISAAC NEWTON performed: 
He demonstrated that a light can be exposed in different shades because of points in space. 
He did this using a prism. 
The idea of prism was birthed in Egypt.

 
I have much more to write. But I end with these words from the Father of the scientific method

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts: but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties."

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

- Francis Bacon Snr (for your INFORMATION he was a trained lawyer)

my final words to you is as important as it is IDEAl:

[url=http://A man is an idea that SEEKS to express itself]A man is an idea that SEEKS to express itself[/url]

Via Aristotle's Law of contraDICTION I can ideally deduce with all accuracy

God is man that has not been FOUND in TIME
Hint - U appear to understand (unlike thehomer) that time is an uncaused cause)

Once more, I submit to you that the Elusinerean mystics were taught ways by which God could be approached solely by means of logic. And it took a Greek man named Socrates to broadcast this truth.

to be continued. I"ll be back. Meanwhile watch out for my online series here on the Religion section

Other than a single line here, I don't see what I have to do with this post.
My response to that line is two fold.
Firstly, is time God? Why did you refer to it as an uncaused cause?

Secondly, time as we know commenced in the finite past along with other aspects of this universe so why not also say that the universe itself was an uncaused cause?

Also, your claim that religion animates science to me is false as you can see if you read this article.
Religion generally stifles or attempts to stifle scientific progress. The history of science is dotted with numerous examples.

@ the homer

Time is CAUSED by God >>> if u presume otherwise, I will have to accuse you of CIRCULAR REASONING (i.e you assume an effect to be its own cause)

since all science is based on finding out the CAUSE of an EFFECT and THE ATTRIBUTES of that cause >>> it is BLASPHEMY for you to ASSUME that time caused itself DURING the BIG BANG


note that : It is only A MIND that PERCIEVES time

Uyi Iredia:

@ the homer

Time is CAUSED by God >>> if u presume otherwise, I will have to accuse you of CIRCULAR REASONING (i.e you assume an effect to be its own cause)

How do you know time is caused by God? Did he tell you?

Uyi Iredia:

since all science is based on finding out the CAUSE of an EFFECT and THE ATTRIBUTES of that cause >>> it is BLASPHEMY for you to ASSUME that time caused itself DURING the BIG BANG

note that : It is only A MIND that PERCIEVES time

When I speak of time here, I'm speaking with respect to its use in physics and astronomy. This time proceeded with the expansion of the universe. It is a part of the universe. So what if only a mind can perceive time? Does this mean that a mind had to have created time?

Just to remind you, I haven't forgotten about the other threads we are discoursing on. I will resume them as time permits. Recall, that I am a university student (bearing academic loads)

thehomer:

How do you know time is caused by God? Did he tell you?

I am not referring to the Christian God per se >>> However, I can understand why u assume such >>> By God, I meant a necessary, infinite and primordial cause of TIME. Keep in mind the definition of time

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another

- culled from Dictionary.com

thehomer:

When I speak of time here, I'm speaking with respect to its use in physics and astronomy. This time proceeded with the expansion of the universe. It is a part of the universe. So what if only a mind can perceive time? Does this mean that a mind had to have created time?

* What if time proceeded. WHERE, WHOM or WHAT did it proceed from ? If you have no answer to this. Then you implicitly state that TIME caused itself  - a most unscientific statement

* I simply use my mind to observe the fact that it is only living/sentient beings that measure time.

* Is it wrong for me to deduce that there is a sentient, primordial being (a.k.a God) that created a decelerating universe ?

* just to remind you that when u say time is a PART of this universe; you implicitly hide the fact that, there is an entity (TIME) that is apart from this universe.

* Have you ever sat down to think on this: why do atheists (more likely than not) all agree that abstract concepts e.g Nature, Universe, Time e.t.c exist ?

I hope I got my lexical and semantic construction of The Great English Language correct 

Uyi Iredia:

Just to remind you, I haven't forgotten about the other threads we are discoursing on. I will resume them as time permits. Recall, that I am a university student (bearing academic loads)

Ok.

Uyi Iredia:

I am not referring to the Christian God per se >>>

Ok. So which God are you referring to? And did he tell you these things you're saying?

Uyi Iredia:

However, I can understand why u assume such >>> By God, I meant a necessary, infinite and primordial cause of TIME.

So, do you believe actual infinite entities exist? How do you know it was a necessary entity? And by primordial, you mean that it is before time itself. How is this concept coherent when we know that time commenced in the finite past?

Uyi Iredia:

Keep in mind the definition of time

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another

- culled from Dictionary.com

Ok. But, keep in mind that I said I was using it in the way in which it is used in physics.

Uyi Iredia:

* What if time proceeded. WHERE, WHOM or WHAT did it proceed from ? If you have no answer to this. Then you implicitly state that TIME caused itself  - a most unscientific statement

It proceeded from the same place space, matter and energy proceeded from.

Uyi Iredia:

* I simply use my mind to observe the fact that it is only living/sentient beings that measure time.

Again so what? Is it only objects and phenomena that are observed by living/sentient beings that exist?

Uyi Iredia:

* Is it wrong for me to deduce that there is a sentient, primordial being (a.k.a God) that created a decelerating universe ?

I think it is wrong for the following reasons. Using your definition of God above: I do not agree that an actual infinite exists, I do not agree that there are disembodied minds floating around, I do not agree that a sentient being "created" time because we have now come to understand that time as we know it came about naturally so based on the principle of parsimony, I see no reason to add to that a more mystical element.

Uyi Iredia:

* just to remind you that when u say time is a PART of this universe; you implicitly hide the fact that, there is an entity (TIME) that is apart from this universe.

No I don't. When I say the sun is a part of this universe, does this also mean there is an entity (sun) that is apart from this universe?

Uyi Iredia:

* Have you ever sat down to think on this: why do atheists (more likely than not) all agree that abstract concepts e.g Nature, Universe, Time e.t.c exist ?

Concepts are abstract and do not exist in the same way that physical objects exist.

Uyi Iredia:

I hope I got my lexical and semantic construction of The Great English Language correct 

You're doing ok.

thehomer:

No I don't. When I say the sun is a part of this universe, does this also mean there is an entity (sun) that is apart from this universe?

ipso facto How do YOU KNOW that the sun (and its attributes) exists ?

thehomer:

Concepts are abstract and do not exist in the same way that physical objects exist.

So why do you not acknowledge a primordial source of all conceptual (sentient) beings ? Did such beings cause themselves via themselves (Please do not beat around the bush with this question). If u believe in abstract concepts, there is necessarily a cause of all abstractions.

thehomer:

You're doing ok.

OK

thehomer:

Ok.

One of these days, you are gonna have to stop sipping soda whilst watching "The Simpsons"_come out of your shell

thehomer:

Ok. So which God are you referring to? And did he tell you these things you're saying?

You are throwing my question back at me here. That was simply an optative statement

thehomer:

So, do you believe actual infinite entities exist? How do you know it was a necessary entity? And by primordial, you mean that it is before time itself. How is this concept coherent when we know that time commenced in the finite past?

I do believe such infinite entities exist. I know it is necessary via the laws of CAUSE AND EFFECT (Google Aristotle's Laws of Thought). What finite past are you talking of ? Who knows such finite past ? Because it seems you Know that there is absolutely nothing other than what is empirically perceived.


Ok. But, keep in mind that I said I was using it in the way in which it is used in physics

thehomer:

It proceeded from the same place space, matter and energy proceeded from,

CHECKMATE! That is the implicit statement I was expecting. So why can't I ask WHAT preceded the Big Bang. I am now convinced that many philosophers misinterpret Kant and Spinoza. Their works are my favourites. Trust me ! I am not your average Christian.

thehomer:

Again so what? Is it only objects and phenomena that are observed by living/sentient beings that exist?

So I INDUCE that a pre-sentient entity Widely called God caused time. Matter is not intelligent per se

thehomer:

I think it is wrong for the following reasons. Using your definition of God above: I do not agree that an actual infinite exists, I do not agree that there are disembodied minds floating around, I do not agree that a sentient being "created" time because we have now come to understand that time as we know it came about naturally so based on the principle of parsimony, I see no reason to add to that a more mystical element.

I think I am right for the following GROUNDS:

• Infinity does exist (a statement to the contrary is absurd)
• I see dead bodies that display no intelligence (even when connected to heart-lung machines)
• I see no physical effect of neurosurgery on the mindset of SOME individuals *think Ben Carson*
• I see creation (inventions) of things never before seen (and now taken for granted)
• I want to KNOW what 'naturally' CAUSED time ? Or the 'perception' of time
• I see that younprinciple of parsimony is not complete because I am curious as to the CAUSE of the parsimony
• I see MINDS looking for matter to create new things

TASK YOUR MIND. This is why Immanuel Kant wrote "The CRITIQUE of PURE REASON"

Uyi Iredia:

ipso facto How do YOU KNOW that the sun (and its attributes) exists ?

The sun and its effects are detectable by both direct and indirect means. e.g We can see the sun and we can see its effects on plants.

Uyi Iredia:

So why do you not acknowledge a primordial source of all conceptual (sentient) beings ?

Humans are not conceptual beings. Humans actually exist.

Uyi Iredia:

Did such beings cause themselves via themselves (Please do not beat around the bush with this question).

Mu.

Uyi Iredia:

If u believe in abstract concepts, there is necessarily a cause of all abstractions.
OK

Concepts are abstract. Some concepts depend on a mind, some do not.

Uyi Iredia:

One of these days, you are gonna have to stop sipping soda whilst watching "The Simpsons"_come out of your shell

Why don't you drag me out?

Uyi Iredia:

You are throwing my question back at me here. That was simply an optative statement

I have to because all you spoke of was the God that you were not referring to. Why not positively let me know the God you were referring to.

Uyi Iredia:

I do believe such infinite entities exist. I know it is necessary via the laws of CAUSE AND EFFECT (Google Aristotle's Laws of Thought).

Can you please name three of these infinite entities?

Uyi Iredia:

What finite past are you talking of ?

I'm talking about the beginning of time.

Uyi Iredia:

Who knows such finite past ? Because it seems you Know that there is absolutely nothing other than what is empirically perceived.

Astrophysicists.

Uyi Iredia:

Ok. But, keep in mind that I said I was using it in the way in which it is used in physics

If you were, then you should realize that according to physics, time commenced in the finite past.

Uyi Iredia:

CHECKMATE! That is the implicit statement I was expecting. So why can't I ask WHAT preceded the Big Bang. I am now convinced that many philosophers misinterpret Kant and Spinoza. Their works are my favourites. Trust me ! I am not your average Christian.

Because time started at the Big Bang. We cannot refer to "before" when there was no time. Though the fact that you can phrase that question in English does not mean it is a valid question.
This is not a philosophy question, it is a physics question.

Uyi Iredia:

So I INDUCE that a pre-sentient entity Widely called God caused time. Matter is not intelligent per se

Time is not independent of the other dimensions of space. Plus, I don't see how you arrived at this God by induction. Could you please lay out the steps?

Uyi Iredia:

I think I am right for the following GROUNDS:

• Infinity does exist (a statement to the contrary is absurd)

Why? The number of atoms in the universe is not infinite. Note that I'm not talking about abstractions like numbers but actual physical objects or entities.

Uyi Iredia:

• I see dead bodies that display no intelligence (even when connected to heart-lung machines)
• I see no physical effect of neurosurgery on the mindset of SOME individuals *think Ben Carson*

What's the relevance of the two statements above?

Uyi Iredia:

• I see creation (inventions) of things never before seen (and now taken for granted)

So what?

Uyi Iredia:

• I want to KNOW what 'naturally' CAUSED time ? Or the 'perception' of time

Time proceeded from the Big Bang. We perceive time due to our evolutionary history.

Uyi Iredia:

• I see that younprinciple of parsimony is not complete because I am curious as to the CAUSE of the parsimony

What does this question even mean? You're simply stringing English words together. That's like asking "what's the cause of why?"

Uyi Iredia:

• I see MINDS looking for matter to create new things

Again, so what?

Uyi Iredia:

TASK YOUR MIND. This is why Immanuel Kant wrote "The CRITIQUE of PURE REASON"

I've tasked my mind. Will you do the same?

"Will and Intellect are one and the same thing"
- Baruch Spinoza


I will answer you in detail, when I have time. But I can confidently say that u do not task ur mind. U stop in a place (by asking 'so what?' and denying the circularity of your arguments).I doubt u realise whom u are talking to. Indulging in fantasies is a shortcut to being an intellectual genius.

The earliest memory I have of my self is as a month old baby being carried around.Trust me,nwhen I say I can recall the sensations I felt as at that time and part of what I saw. Remembering such moments for me is like looking thru a pinhole camera. And be cautious not to label me a freak, because I get funny looks from people when I tell them such stuff

My assignment for you is this: Reach deep into your mind and pull out your earliest memories. This is what the term 'unconscious past' stands for.

I would advice u check my "Rationalizations for Christianity" and "Challenging the Skeptic" board. I have updated it.

Uyi Iredia:

"Will and Intellect are one and the same thing"
- Baruch Spinoza


I will answer you in detail, when I have time. But I can confidently say that u do not task your mind. U stop in a place (by asking 'so what?' and denying the circularity of your arguments).I doubt u realise whom u are talking to. Indulging in fantasies is a shortcut to being an intellectual genius.

I task my mind as much as I want to. When I ask "So what?" I'm wondering what the relevance of the statement I'm responding to is.
Your last statement is not necessarily true. Indulging in the fantasies of e.g zombie apocalypse scenarios does not make you an intellectual genius.

Uyi Iredia:

The earliest memory I have of my self is as a month old baby being carried around.Trust me,nwhen I say I can recall the sensations I felt as at that time and part of what I saw. Remembering such moments for me is like looking thru a pinhole camera. And be cautious not to label me a freak, because I get funny looks from people when I tell them such stuff

I'm sorry but I do not believe you. For starters, how could you tell your age? Even three year old children are sometimes carried around.

Uyi Iredia:

My assignment for you is this: Reach deep into your mind and pull out your earliest memories. This is what the term 'unconscious past' stands for.

Thank you but I'll pass.

Uyi Iredia:

I would advice u check my "Rationalizations for Christianity" and "Challenging the Skeptic" board. I have updated it.

I take it that we are now free to post on those topics.

thehomer:

I task my mind as much as I want to. When I ask "So what?" I'm wondering what the relevance of the statement I'm responding to is.
Your last statement is not necessarily true. Indulging in the fantasies of e.g zombie apocalypse scenarios does not make you an intellectual genius.*1


I'm sorry but I do not believe you. For starters, how could you tell your age? Even three year old children are sometimes carried around.*2



Thank you but I'll pass.*3

I take it that we are now free to post on those topics.*4

@ homer

*1 >>> saying you 'task your mind' (exertion of intellect) as much as 'you want' (exertion of will) only goes to prove Spinoza's quote. 

"Will and Intellect originate from Thought"
- Uyi Iredia

Some are born geniuses, some become geniuses, most never become geniuses - they fantasise about Aladdin. 

In defence of my last statement I will make necessary additions to illuminate my thoughts at that point. 

Indulging in fantasies, via reading and reflecting on books (regardless of genre or appeal) is a shortcut to being an intellectual genius.

I am stunned when I see so-called free-thinkers who say they do not accept religious literature (or any vestige of religion). Even my Dad (especially b4 he became a Christian) was never that bad. He hated Jehovah's Witnesses (partly because of their doctrine on blood transfusion) and yet he still allowed me read their literature (all of which had something new to expose about science). B'cos I am from a family that was initially pagan. I do not discriminate between religions. 

You atheists are fast becoming as guilty as the Christians in being "irreligious" I hope you aren't in that class :/

*2 >>> I am not surprised by your reaction. I told you how my perception was then (as I recall it) >>> *its like looking thru the eye of a pinhole camera or a kaleidoscope 

>>> of course, it is now I am older that I can connect the dots and say that I was so-so-and-so age when I saw this >>> At that, time, I did not fully apprehend or bother myself over the concept of age (until I was about say when I was 5 years old)

The fact that 3 year old children are also carried around >>> should not stop a 21 year old, from sitting down, and recalling very impressionable events of his toddler years (if possible, the day his was born)

*3 >>> and so you show yourself to be mentally lazy >>> I believe you can do it >>> Recall the saying that:

"There is a sleeping genius in every human"
- Unknown

*4 >>> only u and Jenwetemi >>> I'm not about to argue with all (non-theists) on Nairaland >>> I can only do so much whilst juggling my academics (and I intend to beat my Dad) and get a 1st class in both my B.Sc and my M.Sc >>> I do not intend to go for Ph.D

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer

*1 >>> saying you 'task your mind' (exertion of intellect) as much as 'you want' (exertion of will) only goes to prove Spinoza's quote. 

"Will and Intellect originate from Thought"
- Uyi Iredia

Some are born geniuses, some become geniuses, most never become geniuses - they fantasise about Aladdin. 

In defence of my last statement I will make necessary additions to illuminate my thoughts at that point. 

Indulging in fantasies, via reading and reflecting on books (regardless of genre or appeal) is a shortcut to being an intellectual genius.

I am stunned when I see so-called free-thinkers who say they do not accept religious literature (or any vestige of religion). Even my Dad (especially b4 he became a Christian) was never that bad. He hated Jehovah's Witnesses (partly because of their doctrine on blood transfusion) and yet he still allowed me read their literature (all of which had something new to expose about science). B'cos I am from a family that was initially pagan. I do not discriminate between religions. 

You atheists are fast becoming as guilty as the Christians in being "irreligious" I hope you aren't in that class :/

Simply reading and reflecting does not make you a genius. Becoming a genius requires lots of hard work. How are Christians becoming irreligious?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> I am not surprised by your reaction. I told you how my perception was then (as I recall it) >>> *its like looking thru the eye of a pinhole camera or a kaleidoscope 

>>> of course, it is now I am older that I can connect the dots and say that I was so-so-and-so age when I saw this >>> At that, time, I did not fully apprehend or bother myself over the concept of age (until I was about say when I was 5 years old)

The fact that 3 year old children are also carried around >>> should not stop a 21 year old, from sitting down, and recalling very impressionable events of his toddler years (if possible, the day his was born)

You have still not given sufficient reasons to convince someone else that you were less than six months in you so called memory. Looking through a pinhole camera is evidence of what?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> and so you show yourself to be mentally lazy >>> I believe you can do it >>> Recall the saying that:

"There is a sleeping genius in every human"
- Unknown

Rubbish. Believe whatever you want. Just be sure that you're not harboring a delusion.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> only u and Jenwetemi >>> I'm not about to argue with all (non-theists) on Nairaland >>> I can only do so much whilst juggling my academics (and I intend to beat my Dad) and get a 1st class in both my B.Sc and my M.Sc >>> I do not intend to go for Ph.D

Good for you.

thehomer:

Why don't you drag me out?*1


I have to because all you spoke of was the God that you were not referring to. Why not positively let me know the God you were referring to.*2


Can you please name three of these infinite entities?*3


I'm talking about the beginning of time.*4


Astrophysicists.*5


If you were, then you should realize that according to physics, time commenced in the finite past.*6


Because time started at the Big Bang. We cannot refer to "before" when there was no time. Though the fact that you can phrase that question in English does not mean it is a valid question.
This is not a philosophy question, it is a physics question.*7


Time is not independent of the other dimensions of space. Plus, I don't see how you arrived at this God by induction. Could you please lay out the steps?*8


Why? The number of atoms in the universe is not infinite. Note that I'm not talking about abstractions like numbers but actual physical objects or entities.*9


What's the relevance of the two statements above?*10


So what?*11


Time proceeded from the Big Bang. We perceive time due to our evolutionary history.*12


What does this question even mean? You're simply stringing English words together. That's like asking "what's the cause of why?"*13


Again, so what?*14


I've tasked my mind. Will you do the same?*15

@ homer 

*1 >>> at least I know enough about you to infer that you are male with bisexual tendencies and that 'The Simpsons' had 
a part to play in your decision to become atheist. Of course, I might be wrong about all of this. 

But I'd say you are more like Bart Simpson

*2 >>> naming entities that are supposedly infinite is an absurdity >>> However, I will grant your request. Three of such infinite entities should be

Zeus
Ra
Yahweh

I believe this to be the same God because a Christian God that created Nature can be apprehended in various ways and to various levels (in an infinite variety of ways) >>> this is one of the major reasons why most Christians lose in religious debates - and sheepishly back out. 

I don't. 

*3 >>> This is circular reasoning and you have just undone yourself. 

Look at your former clause

If you were, then you should realize that according to physics, time commenced in the finite past.

Since by finite past you mean the beginning of time, See how the more absurd your comment is shown 

If you were, then you should realize that according to physics, time commenced in the beginning of time

That's a ridiculously redundant statement. 

*4 >>> This is an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. Where such astrophysicists present at the beginning of time ? 
If not, I have no reason to believe their word as final. 

*5 >>> most physicists understand that the Big Bang has metaphysical implications that appeal to the arguments of theists. Many atheists (I've encountered) either hide this or cover this up in semantics. 

*6 >>> We can always refer to "before there was no time" because of the need to know what was the state that preceded the Big Bang (which is what is responsible for the manifestation of our universe) 

Besides u seem not to have a good grasp of The theory of relativity. As long as we exist in space, time is relative. Don't you notice that where time is talked of, measurement occurs 
(using a variate form of stable constant e.g frequency of rotation of gears, Caesium atoms, sun e.t.c)

* 7 >>> Only humans talk of time. Other sentient beings do not bother over time. Do you agree with this ? Or do you know of animals that measure time ?

Measuring time is different from seasonal habits. Do not make that 'shift of scope' fallacy. 

Besides I can always ask what preceded time since it was an event (the Big Bang) that started time and space. 

* 8 >>> It is independent of space and it is limited by space >>> 
at this point I wish the phrase 'space-time' continuum where called 'space-thought' continuum (for without thought, there can be no time). You cannot know when you fall asleep. You can only guess so. But you can 'know' what tome you went to bed. 

As for proof for God. Go this site: www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog

*9 >>> another blight on your part >>> for one there are still more sub-atomic particles being discovered at CERN labs >>> there are still more new elements that mankind can engineer from the 92 elements on the periodic table >>> Einsteintinium and Lawrencium are 2 of such artificial elements >>> which are by-products of radioactive reactions

With sufficient knowledge of sub-atomic elements and their attributes. We can engineer new elements. thehomer, Do you read at all ? Or do you read materials relevant only tonyour work ? 

If your answer to my 2nd question is affirmative. You will never attain the height of your intellectual genius. 

*10 >>> that there are many phenomena that cannot be solely explained materialistically. Even materialistic philosophy is an ideal per se

*11 >>> so if there are multitude of things that exist only in the minds of people till they are physically implemented. I would say that a necessary primordial creator (from which all creative beings derive their capacity to create) exists

*12 >>> the first part of your reply is an apparently wrong answer >>> I asked WHAT CAUSED Time ? >>> and you tell me HOW Time STARTED

the following 'snookerball' analogy should explain things

2 people observe a person play the first cue after which the balls roll about on their own >>>

 Let God be The one who plays the first cue
 Let thehomer be the first observer
 Let Uyi be the second observer
 Let the first cue be the big bang

thehomer sees the balls rolling about and says that an accident caused the balls to roll about

Uyi wants to know the what/who caused the accident and thehomer replies by telling him that he saw the balls rolling about. 

the clear absurdity of thehomer's stance is rephrasing the story of an accident when one is inquires as to the cause of the accident. 

Secondly >>> Perception is as a result of thought >>> ask leprous people (who do not feel, people for whom sex holds no pleasures) how they live >>> you will be amazed at the no. of adjustments they have to make just to get thru life >>> There are lepers till this day along the Ore-Benin interstate pass

>>> are u saying that humans alone evolved the capacity to create via undirected mutations ?

I have a whole bunch of questions

>>> does the concept of a 'Blind Watchmaker'  make sense ? How does a blind person make wristwatches ? How can a wristwatch make itself ? Doesn't it sound absurd to describe evolution as a 'BLIND watchMAKER'

>>> and trust me the answers I've read from the books of naturalistic evolutionists are conflicting and, sometimes, incomplete

*13 >>> Why can't I ask "what's the cause of why" ? I doubt you will be willing to answer this question. Please, prove me wrong !

*14 >>> uncle (please forgive the rudeness) are u this lazy !?

My answer to your question is that: God that exists as pure and pristine THOUGHT created all thinking beings (humans) and sentient beings (biological species)

Christianity is a mode of religion that seeks to find out the attributes of THOUGHT itself (a.k.a God)

I suggest you read Baruch Spinoza "Ethics" >>> and do not be deceived; because of his impartiality, he is oft talked of as an atheist. He was a staunch Catholic Jew (with a great deal of influence from the Jesuits)

*15 >>> Trust me, I have tasked myself sore. Drowned myself in atheist books and sites so much so that I thought myself atheist (you'll recall I was playing about the option of becoming deist). Until I saw that atheistic (and to some extent, even deistic) mentations sorely lack in accounting for THOUGHT. 

Materialism itself is an idea. Do you see dead (or unconscious) people who question the existence of God ? and other wineries of life ?

* a person can always stop below the summit of a mountain and say he/she has tasked himself/herself. A person can reach the mountaintop and see from the top that there are many ways thru which one can reach the top*

thehomer:

Simply reading and reflecting does not make you a genius. Becoming a genius requires lots of hard work. How are Christians becoming irreligious?*1


You have still not given sufficient reasons to convince someone else that you were less than six months in you so called memory. Looking through a pinhole camera is evidence of what?*2


Rubbish. Believe whatever you want. Just be sure that you're not harboring a delusion.*3


Good for you.*4

*1 >>> many people work hard and do not become geniuses >>> you might be a typical example >>> reading and reflecting are mental processes which exercise and stretch the amazing ability of humans to abstract >>> this is how one can awake his/her genius >>> people of the medieval age and yesteryears were polymaths because tht did not have the kinds of distractions and luxuries that abound today.

to become a genius >>> read wide, be eclectic in your tastes and engage your mind >>> it's obvious you don't >>> you just grab whatever life piecemeals you

As for my quip on 'irrelligious' >>> I meant 'religious' >>> which shows u find it hard to discern when I speak metaphorically >>> however there could be people who are atheists and who are forced to go to church (or adhere tona religion) because of 'circumstances beyond their control' >>> there might be 'Christians' who do not have genuine faith and beguile others with their 'spirituality'


*2 >>> said you >>> I have adduced enough proofs. Nothing but blind skepticism is what binds your belief. Blind especially since you were lazy to dwell on earliest memories you have of yourself. This shouldn't take long (except you have a poor memory)

>>> when I try to recollect some of my earliest memories and piece them up; the feeling is what is akin to 'looking thru a pinhole camera

*3 >>> your life is a delusion (same goes for me) >>> until you realise that; you'll be blinded (or take for granted) each day that you wake up >>> must a great personal mishap or some natural disaster have to present itself to you before you realise that: Life is nothing but what you make of it

Keep on building castles in the air and think you are living

*4 >>> ok

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer 

*1 >>> at least I know enough about you to infer that you are male with bisexual tendencies and that 'The Simpsons' had 
a part to play in your decision to become atheist. Of course, I might be wrong about all of this. 

But I'd say you are more like Bart Simpson

Wrong on all counts.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> naming entities that are supposedly infinite is an absurdity >>> However, I will grant your request. Three of such infinite entities should be

Zeus
Ra
Yahweh

I believe this to be the same God because a Christian God that created Nature can be apprehended in various ways and to various levels (in an infinite variety of ways) >>> this is one of the major reasons why most Christians lose in religious debates - and sheepishly back out. 

I don't. 

Zeus and Ra are not Christian Gods.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> This is circular reasoning and you have just undone yourself. 

Look at your former clause

Since by finite past you mean the beginning of time, See how the more absurd your comment is shown 

That's a ridiculously redundant statement. 

That statement was just to demonstrate that time is not infinite.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> This is an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. Where such astrophysicists present at the beginning of time ? 
If not, I have no reason to believe their word as final. 

Were you present when you father was born? If your grandfather said he was born would you believe him?
I'd like to ask you, does expert opinion bear any weight to you?

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> most physicists understand that the Big Bang has metaphysical implications that appeal to the arguments of theists. Many atheists (I've encountered) either hide this or cover this up in semantics. 

Can you clarify this statement?

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> We can always refer to "before there was no time" because of the need to know what was the state that preceded the Big Bang (which is what is responsible for the manifestation of our universe) 

Besides u seem not to have a good grasp of The theory of relativity. As long as we exist in space, time is relative. Don't you notice that where time is talked of, measurement occurs 
(using a variate form of stable constant e.g frequency of rotation of gears, Caesium atoms, sun e.t.c)

You seem to not understand that the fact that you can construct a certain question in English does not mean that the question is meaningful. e.g Where is North of the North pole?

Uyi Iredia:

* 7 >>> Only humans talk of time. Other sentient beings do not bother over time. Do you agree with this ? Or do you know of animals that measure time ?

Measuring time is different from seasonal habits. Do not make that 'shift of scope' fallacy. 

Besides I can always ask what preceded time since it was an event (the Big Bang) that started time and space. 

The fact that you can ask it does not mean it is meaningful.

Uyi Iredia:

* 8 >>> It is independent of space and it is limited by space >>> 
at this point I wish the phrase 'space-time' continuum where called 'space-thought' continuum (for without thought, there can be no time). You cannot know when you fall asleep. You can only guess so. But you can 'know' what tome you went to bed. 

As for proof for God. Go this site: www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog

Wish all you want. If you want to make it a reality, then enter the appropriate field and do the required work.
Sorry but you'll have to present the proof/evidence for God that you like the most. I don't have time to go digging around some random person's blog.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> another blight on your part >>> for one there are still more sub-atomic particles being discovered at CERN labs >>> there are still more new elements that mankind can engineer from the 92 elements on the periodic table >>> Einsteintinium and Lawrencium are 2 of such artificial elements >>> which are by-products of radioactive reactions

With sufficient knowledge of sub-atomic elements and their attributes. We can engineer new elements. thehomer, Do you read at all ? Or do you read materials relevant only tonyour work ? 

If your answer to my 2nd question is affirmative. You will never attain the height of your intellectual genius.

What is the relevance of this? I said "The number of atoms in the universe is not infinite". Are sub-atomic particles atoms? Or do you think man made elements are atoms? Please slow down your intellectual genius and actually read what I wrote.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> that there are many phenomena that cannot be solely explained materialistically. Even materialistic philosophy is an ideal per se

And how do the statements you posted demonstrate this?

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> so if there are multitude of things that exist only in the minds of people till they are physically implemented. I would say that a necessary primordial creator (from which all creative beings derive their capacity to create) exists

This sounds like an attempt to define God into existence. This amounts to Mr. A claiming "I'm thinking of a flying car. Therefore God exists". How does it even follow?

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> the first part of your reply is an apparently wrong answer >>> I asked WHAT CAUSED Time ? >>> and you tell me HOW Time STARTED

the following 'snookerball' analogy should explain things

2 people observe a person play the first cue after which the balls roll about on their own >>>

 Let God be The one who plays the first cue
 Let thehomer be the first observer
 Let Uyi be the second observer
 Let the first cue be the big bang

thehomer sees the balls rolling about and says that an accident caused the balls to roll about

Uyi wants to know the what/who caused the accident and thehomer replies by telling him that he saw the balls rolling about. 

the clear absurdity of thehomer's stance is rephrasing the story of an accident when one is inquires as to the cause of the accident. 

Secondly >>> Perception is as a result of thought >>> ask leprous people (who do not feel, people for whom sex holds no pleasures) how they live >>> you will be amazed at the no. of adjustments they have to make just to get thru life >>> There are lepers till this day along the Ore-Benin interstate pass

>>> are u saying that humans alone evolved the capacity to create via undirected mutations ?

I have a whole bunch of questions

>>> does the concept of a 'Blind Watchmaker'  make sense ? How does a blind person make wristwatches ? How can a wristwatch make itself ? Doesn't it sound absurd to describe evolution as a 'BLIND watchMAKER'

>>> and trust me the answers I've read from the books of naturalistic evolutionists are conflicting and, sometimes, incomplete

The problems with your analogy are that you have simply introduced your God into it and you use snooker balls which generally function based on Newtonian mechanics.
Consider this. If I replaced your God with a unicorn or a dragon that can play snooker, does it still work? Does this mean God is a dragon, a unicorn or something else? Secondly, using Newtonian mechanics even Eisnteinian relativity still does not work.
So the entire problem with Newtonian mechanics is the requirement of a pusher which is actually not needed in say quantum mechanics making the question "who caused this" quite meaningless.
Ask your questions.
Have you considered that our thinking has also evolved?
It seems that you're at the same time failing to understand a metaphor.

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> Why can't I ask "what's the cause of why" ? I doubt you will be willing to answer this question. Please, prove me wrong !

That is a meaningless question. As meaningless as asking "what is the cause of parsimony?" or what is the cause of tall?

Uyi Iredia:

*14 >>> uncle (please forgive the rudeness) are u this lazy !?

My answer to your question is that: God that exists as pure and pristine THOUGHT created all thinking beings (humans) and sentient beings (biological species)

Christianity is a mode of religion that seeks to find out the attributes of THOUGHT itself (a.k.a God)

I suggest you read Baruch Spinoza "Ethics" >>> and do not be deceived; because of his impartiality, he is oft talked of as an atheist. He was a staunch Catholic Jew (with a great deal of influence from the Jesuits)

This is yet another demonstration of absurdity. God is thought? What is wrong with you? So the Christian Jesus was just a thought? How about the Holy Spirit? So you actually believe a floating thought thought up the universe and out it popped, thought up the earth and out it popped, thought up humans and out they popped and thought up his Bible which caused the humans he thought up to think it up too?
Are you being serious?

Uyi Iredia:

*15 >>> Trust me, I have tasked myself sore. Drowned myself in atheist books and sites so much so that I thought myself atheist (you'll recall I was playing about the option of becoming deist). Until I saw that atheistic (and to some extent, even deistic) mentations sorely lack in accounting for THOUGHT. 

Materialism itself is an idea. Do you see dead (or unconscious) people who question the existence of God ? and other wineries of life ?

* a person can always stop below the summit of a mountain and say he/she has tasked himself/herself. A person can reach the mountaintop and see from the top that there are many ways thru which one can reach the top*

Atheism does not account for thought? Have you considered that thought is a product of our evolution? So a dead person cannot think of God therefore God? This is so absurd that I really have to ask, are you a Poe?

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> many people work hard and do not become geniuses >>> you might be a typical example >>> reading and reflecting are mental processes which exercise and stretch the amazing ability of humans to abstract >>> this is how one can awake his/her genius >>> people of the medieval age and yesteryears were polymaths because tht did not have the kinds of distractions and luxuries that abound today.

to become a genius >>> read wide, be eclectic in your tastes and engage your mind >>> it's obvious you don't >>> you just grab whatever life piecemeals you

As for my quip on 'irrelligious' >>> I meant 'religious' >>> which shows u find it hard to discern when I speak metaphorically >>> however there could be people who are atheists and who are forced to go to church (or adhere tona religion) because of 'circumstances beyond their control' >>> there might be 'Christians' who do not have genuine faith and beguile others with their 'spirituality'

Huray. Uyi Iredia has demonstrated that I work hard and am not a genius. I'm also not eclectic in my tastes neither do I engage my mind. I wonder Mr. Uyi Iredia, are you a genius? Since it seems that you really like to imagine so much.
If you really think sitting around day dreaming and reading makes you a genius, then you have your [i]work [/i]cut out for you.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> said you >>> I have adduced enough proofs. Nothing but blind skepticism is what binds your belief. Blind especially since you were lazy to dwell on earliest memories you have of yourself. This shouldn't take long (except you have a poor memory)

>>> when I try to recollect some of my earliest memories and piece them up; the feeling is what is akin to 'looking thru a pinhole camera

Sorry but feeling you were being carried and having pinhole camera vision does not mean you recalled being 1 month old.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> your life is a delusion (same goes for me) >>> until you realise that; you'll be blinded (or take for granted) each day that you wake up >>> must a great personal mishap or some natural disaster have to present itself to you before you realise that: Life is nothing but what you make of it

Keep on building castles in the air and think you are living

*4 >>> ok

No my friend speak for yourself because it seems that you're alone in your delusion.
Oh and I'm living.

th[b]ehomer:

Huray. Uyi Iredia has demonstrated that I work hard and am not a genius. I'm also not eclectic in my tastes neither do I engage my mind. I wonder Mr. Uyi Iredia, are you a genius? Since it seems that you really like to imagine so much.
If you really think sitting around day dreaming and reading makes you a genius, then you have your work [/i]cut out for you.[/b]*1


Sorry but feeling you were being carried and having pinhole camera vision does not mean you recalled being 1 month old.*2


No my friend speak for yourself because it seems that you're alone in your delusion.
Oh and I'm living.*3

*1 >>> this is not a serious reply >>> by the way, while day-dreaming is a thought process (it is not as engaging) >>> hence my preference for the word, 'abstraction'

*2 >>> if that's what you will

*3 >>> first, saying I'm deluded only convinces me that you are trapped within a matrix of secular thinking >>> you have not for once assumed the mentations of a religious person to critically evaluate them >>> I on the other hand have thought like an atheist (and tried to build a philosophical framework for my life based on it) and it failed miserably after 3 days of critical scrutiny >>> and this is where the hogwash over evolution needs to be critiqued >>> a time will come when evolutionists will have to stop the annoying deception and admit that all evolutionary processes (be it in biology, business, technology or education) are driven by INTELLIGENCE
not 'blind' intelligence or happenstance - that's asinine

second, you think you are living >>> you are but a thinking being, that exists in space, limited by the (human) body it exists in >>> and until you realise that, I will appear deluded to you >>> expect to get wowed in the coming months

[i]"All human activities are nought but thought processes"
- Uyi Iredia

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
- Buddha

thehomer:

Wrong on all counts.*1


Zeus and Ra are not Christian Gods.*2


That statement was just to demonstrate that time is not infinite.*3


Were you present when you father was born? If your grandfather said he was born would you believe him?
I'd like to ask you, does expert opinion bear any weight to you?*4


Can you clarify this statement?*5


You seem to not understand that the fact that you can construct a certain question in English does not mean that the question is meaningful. e.g Where is North of the North pole?*6


The fact that you can ask it does not mean it is meaningful.*7


Wish all you want. If you want to make it a reality, then enter the appropriate field and do the required work.
Sorry but you'll have to present the proof/evidence for God that you like the most. I don't have time to go digging around some random person's blog.*8


What is the relevance of this? I said [b]"The number of atoms in the universe is not infinite". Are sub-atomic particles atoms? Or do you think man made elements are atoms? Please slow down your intellectual genius and actually read what I wrote.[/b]*9


And how do the statements you posted demonstrate this?*10


This sounds like an attempt to define God into existence. This amounts to Mr. A claiming "I'm thinking of a flying car. Therefore God exists". How does it even follow?*11


The problems with your analogy are that you have simply introduced your God into it and you use snooker balls which generally function based on Newtonian mechanics.
Consider this. If I replaced your God with a unicorn or a dragon that can play snooker, does it still work? Does this mean God is a dragon, a unicorn or something else? Secondly, using Newtonian mechanics even Eisnteinian relativity still does not work.
So the entire problem with Newtonian mechanics is the requirement of a pusher which is actually not needed in say quantum mechanics making the question "who caused this" quite meaningless.
Ask your questions.
Have you considered that our thinking has also evolved?
It seems that you're at the same time failing to understand a metaphor.*12


That is a meaningless question. As meaningless as asking "what is the cause of parsimony?" or what is the cause of tall?*13


This is yet another demonstration of absurdity. God is thought? What is wrong with you? So the Christian Jesus was just a thought? How about the Holy Spirit? So you actually believe a floating thought thought up the universe and out it popped, thought up the earth and out it popped, thought up humans and out they popped and thought up his Bible which caused the humans he thought up to think it up too?
Are you being serious?*14


Atheism does not account for thought? Have you considered that thought is a product of our evolution? So a dead person cannot think of God therefore God? This is so absurd that I really have to ask, are you a Poe?*15

*1 >>> okay >>> either way I know at least one more thing about you >>> if I accept your dismissal as true or false >>> I can use it to further develop my perception of you >>> which may or may not be in tandem with your real-life persona

*2 >>> you never placed a condition on how to name such infinite entities >>> besides your answer shows that you did not read my answer clearly

I said that a Christian God that created Nature can be apprehended in various ways and to various levels (in an infinite variety of ways

Furthermore, there are clear similarities between Zeus, Ra and Yahweh that can be forwarded to make my arguments more sophisticated >>> one being that they were all believed to be the primary custodians of all creatures living

*3 >>> u need to brush up on ur physics textbooks >>> time is both finite and infinite (Read up on Aristotle's Laws Of Thought) >>> BTW, i presume u have implicitly accepted the ridiculousness of your post >>> I was expecting a more engaging answer

*4 >>> answer to your 1st and 3rd question >>> no
answer to your 2nd question >>> yes
right from a young age, when my dad gifted me lots of books I have learnt that one's greatest gift is: to think for oneself and to think outside of the matrix (i.e to imagine)

BTW if u have kids >>> I hope u do not discriminate against the kinds of literature they read >>> no information (from any book or literary media is wasted) >>> I have realised the truth of that quote by Ben Carson. 

*5 >>> I will clarify it one a sole condition: Tell me what you make out of the statement. Here it is again:

*5 >>> most physicists understand that the Big Bang has metaphysical implications that appeal to the arguments of theists. Many atheists (I've encountered) either hide this or cover this up in semantics.

*6 >>> I surmise that north of the North pole should be a location in the North Pole (the Artic Circle) that will be at the topmost point of the Earth's hemisphere >>> I expect my compass needle to lie horizontally at that part of the North pole (or some other form of indication of my location)

All questions have meaning (sometimes the meaning is lost upon the hearers and, occasionally, the speakers of the question)

*7 >>> you have an annoying habit of running away from tough questions >>> either by asking for 'evidence' or by plain dismissal >>> my conclusion: you are intellectually lazy

*8 >>> the fact that you assume that I need to enter the field further goes to show your lack of imagination >>> more people than can be numbered have contributed greatly to singular/various fields of science from without (i.e outside of scientific circles) e.g Immanuel Kant, Baruch Spinoza, Leonhard Euler, Bertrand Russell, Hypatia, Alexander The Great, Adolf Hitler, John F. Kennedy, Bill Gates, Euclid, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing, Arthur Clarke e.t.c

since u do not have time to go digging around >>> you can never find the treasure-chest of truth (the mud around will suffice as your gold) >>> u are lazy, no wonder your lack of inclination for that which is philosophical >>> I hope say u no be 'follow-follow' atheist

*9 >>> summary of my previous answer: u are wrong, there are an infinite order/number of atoms present and more that will be engineered (for specific purposes) >>> that is the goal of physicists

Please read and digest an answer b4 replying

As to your questions:

- sub-atomic particles aren't atoms but they are responsible for the behaviour and attributes of atoms 
- most man-made elements ARE NOT atoms. It is very likely that atoms can be created (how can one create a new element without creating a new atom ? Especially, since atoms are the building block of an element ?) To be candid, I am even being too cautious in answering u. U seem to have a relatively shallow scientific background. 

*10 >>> this is a circular question: It was QUITE EXPLICITLY dealt with in my the topic post. Here's an important paragraph you should note:

I submit to you that the cause (error) of the science-religion debate is this. The idea (science) is mistaken for the implementation of that idea (the scientific method).

A man who seeks for a scientific discovery is no different from the man who seeks SOMETHING he does not fully know (i.e the state of being ignorant) to get something he fully understands (HAS COME TO LIGHT). The path of knowledge is a journey that already has be flown through by faith. Faith believes because it exists outside of time. Science believes and works out the details in space (I choose not to not mention time because TIME is a thing of the mind)  The problem is that working out details takes a long time.

*11 >>> this is not a fallacy, It follows well. >>> Mathematicians define new constants and variables into existence by the day >>> Linguists and Semanticists define new words into existence (some which stand for an abstract object) >>> you are shallow in your scope and this is the weakness of a Skeptics position (from whence modern day atheists base their philosophy) >>> I'd even rate a cynic better

furthermore, I used a simple inductive process which I will syllogise for clarity:

- All observed sentient beings create
- God is an (assumed primordial) sentient being
- God has the ability to create

tackling it from your 'flying car' happenstance; Here's my answer: 
Suppose there is no flying car in concrete existence (there is) and one has only imagined of how this flying car would be like (i.e its attributes) >>> a skeptical person can dismiss the feasibility of such flying car being made; and it being just a daydream and therefore non-existent >>> but if such a car were made we talk about it (thoughts of the flying car) being brought to reality 

>>> the lesson that can be gotten from this is that: Thoughts, though abstract, are real and have effects that impress upon (concrete) reality >>> it so happens that one can rightly infer that a God (a necessary uncaused cause) thought of and made the universe we now enjoy. >>> Like thought, God exists outside of space and time. Like thought, God has control over space and time, albeit, at an infinitely greater capacity than humans can reach. 

*12 >>> your reasoning is poor >>> it is a concealed way of running away from the truth it explicates (that the answer you forwarded is an inappropriate one) >>> I asked for what (naturally) caused time and you forwarded properties of time and you gave me attributes of time as the answer. I had even rephrased my question earlier (when I asked for the state that preceded the Big Bang) and you played dumb

>>> I specifically chose snooker-balls because they (like our universe follow the laws of Newtonian mechanics and relativity - or do you think relativity applies only to galactic bodies ?) >>> I get time to finish you today >>> I'll kill your questions - and the notions therein - sequentially 

- If you even replace God with Yeti, leprechauns, Bigfoot or King Kong; my snooker-ball analogy still holds true >>> God can be defined in terms of any of His creations (if u desire, you can call him a prostitute). Lemme iterate 2 quotes to you, until understudy them u (and can clarify) will be a simpleton as regards what God is and its attributes. 

"Deus sive Natura. God (is expressed) through Nature"
- Baruch Spinoza

"God Is. But does not exist"
- [bSoren Kierkegaard[/b]

>>> BTW, lemme add that; I surmise that the (Christian) God is referred to as a He because, its avatar came in the form of a male, Jesus Christ. 

- SMH, what course did/do you study ? >>> I will do my cross-check of my textbook (just in case I'm wrong - though I doubt it). Einsteinian Physics is in harmony with Newtonian Physics. As a matter of fact, together they give a complete model of the universe we live in. All that theoretical physicists (like Stephen Hawkings) do is to fill in the blanks and work out the (infinite amount of) details.
 I studied Einstein's theory of relativity in my 100-level >>> it seems like yesterday when I was solving problems on it >>> last time I checked, most crucial relativity equations and identities were (and still are) derivations of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion (and the equations thereof). Effects of relativity occur in Newtonian mechanics but are negligible (i.e small enough to be ignored). You have a sorry knowledge of the theory of relativity and I will stop taking you seriously on it. Please brush up on your knowledge. Be an informed atheist. 

- 'pushers' are needed in quantum mechanics as well. Electrons and other sub-atomic particles use ambient/artificial energy to 'push' themselves from one energy level to the next. All this is senior secondary school chemistry. thehomer, you are getting things twisted. BTW, saying that my question is QUITE meaningless clearly implies that there is some meaning to it (that you purposefully ignore because of its implications on your stance)

- All things were CREATED to evolve >>> evolution is a creative process >>> saying that thinking evolved by itself (given some initial set of conditions) is incorrect thinking >>> current neo-Darwinian theories are sorely lacking and counter-intuitive because they argue that evolution of life is a bottom-up process. Whereas evolution, in an aspect of human endeavour, is due to an averaged compilation of top-down thought processes >>> evolutionary science can never progress till it acknowledges the fact that an intelligence (and I hope it's not an alien ) is what drives all evolutionary constructs >>> I end by killing the bad thinking, that effuses this part of your reply, with a quote

"An effect can never be its own cause. This is the fuel (maxim) that drives the scientific method."
- Uyi Iredia

- I have read parts from the Prof. Dawkins book in question. I also know enough from rudimentary English classes that titles 
are phrases coined by authors to snapshot the message of their book. Answer my questions and stop chaffing. 

*13 >>> it's okay they are as meaningless >>> that's because your questions are 'meaningless' questions that necessarily have an appropriate answer >>> I need to ask semanticists this question: How can a value 'meaningless' be assigned to something that supposedly has no value ? >>> besides it is obvious that you are not a free-thinker >>> because in free-thinking one does not discriminate anything >>> a free-thinker tasks oneself to find the truth in any mode of thought. 

*14 >>> you are making noise >>> imputing your own meanings into my posts and distorting them >>> I beseech you to stop this nonsense ! >>> First, EAT Spinoza's book "Ethics" b4, DIGEST its contents then come back to me 

Meanwhile, there are 2 questions I would use to burst your bubble 
- How did Life pop out ?
- Did The Big Bang pop itself into existence ?

Answer these questions. Then I will return the favour by answering your puerile questions

*15 >>> to your first question>>> it does not >>> instead it begins to direct one to evolution for answers - as you just did ? >>> 

To your second question >>> I have checked on naturalistic explanations on the evolution of the eye (and of thought - q.v) and found them incomplete (I have written personal essays rebutting such explanations) >>> evolutionists (as far as I know) do not have a round-table theory on how the human brain evolved (evolutionary neuroscience will most likely be nascent) >>> u are now subtly forwarding the hogwash that evolutionary psychologists present as to how humans evolved their ability to abstract >>> Now get this into your psyche, it is thought that drives, produces and observes evolution - not the other way around

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> this is not a serious reply >>> by the way, while day-dreaming is a thought process (it is not as engaging) >>> hence my preference for the word, 'abstraction'

No it isn't. You were just demonstrating your genius all over the place by making some serious online diagnosis that have a predilection for being wrong. Sure you prefer the word "abstraction" that still does not mean what you're doing is not day-dreaming. Play with words all you like.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> if that's what you will

It is because what you presented was not good enough for me to come to a better conclusion.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> first, saying I'm deluded only convinces me that you are trapped within a matrix of secular thinking >>> you have not for once assumed the mentations of a religious person to critically evaluate them >>> I on the other hand have thought like an atheist (and tried to build a philosophical framework for my life based on it) and it failed miserably after 3 days of critical scrutiny >>> and this is where the hogwash over evolution needs to be critiqued >>> a time will come when evolutionists will have to stop the annoying deception and admit that all evolutionary processes (be it in biology, business, technology or education) are driven by INTELLIGENCE
not 'blind' intelligence or happenstance - that's asinine

Why should I assume the mentations of a religious person? Do you think I have a desire to go about trying every single religion to come to the conclusion that they are generally false or do you think I have a death wish to be stung by a snake?
A philosophical framework based on atheism? What do you think atheism is? What philosophical framework have you built based on theism?
Go ahead and critique evolution. Just be sure that you actually understand what it is about before you start trying to critique it so you don't appear ignorant.
It may appear asinine to you due to your lack of understanding which is why I would advice you to first try to understand what the theory actually says.

Uyi Iredia:

second, you think you are living >>> you are but a thinking being, that exists in space, limited by the (human) body it exists in >>> and until you realise that, I will appear deluded to you >>> expect to get wowed in the coming months

"All human activities are nought but thought processes"
- Uyi Iredia

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
- Buddha

Meh.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> okay >>> either way I know at least one more thing about you >>> if I accept your dismissal as true or false >>> I can use it to further develop my perception of you >>> which may or may not be in tandem with your real-life persona

Develop away.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> you never placed a condition on how to name such infinite entities >>> besides your answer shows that you did not read my answer clearly
I said that a Christian God that created Nature can be apprehended in various ways and to various levels (in an infinite variety of ways
Furthermore, there are clear similarities between Zeus, Ra and Yahweh that can be forwarded to make my arguments more sophisticated >>> one being that they were all believed to be the primary custodians of all creatures living

You are as usual simply asserting that a "Christian God created Nature". What evidence do you have for this? Why should an ancient Greek believe that a Christian God created nature?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> u need to brush up on your physics textbooks >>> time is both finite and infinite (Read up on Aristotle's Laws Of Thought) >>> BTW, i presume u have implicitly accepted the ridiculousness of your post >>> I was expecting a more engaging answer

Are you using Aristotle's Laws of Thought as your basis for discussing time in physics?
Do you think time is infinite?
How many infinite phenomena or concepts do you know that have a definite beginning?
What was ridiculous about the post?

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> answer to your 1st and 3rd question >>> no
answer to your 2nd question >>> yes
right from a young age, when my dad gifted me lots of books I have learnt that one's greatest gift is: to think for oneself and to think outside of the matrix (i.e to imagine)

Would you still believe your grandfather if he said "I was at a shop buying groceries when I was informed that your father was born".
If expert opinion really bears no weight with you then what you have just demonstrated is hubris, foolishness or a predilection to not speaking the truth. Seriously, if a medical doctor advices you that your child needs regular insulin shots to control his diabetes, would you really discount his expert opinion? How about if your airplane mechanic advices you that you need to service this jet so cannot use it for a while will you ignore him?
Do you really think that you can actually live a productive life in these times without lending weight to expert opinion? Wow.

Uyi Iredia:

BTW if u have kids >>> I hope u do not discriminate against the kinds of literature they read >>> no information (from any book or literary media is wasted) >>> I have realised the truth of that quote by Ben Carson.

Of course I will discriminate on what they read based on their ages. So what if Ben Carson said that. Could you not have arrived at that conclusion on your own? What is the relevance of whether or not Ben Carson made that quote?

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> I will clarify it one a sole condition: Tell me what you make out of the statement. Here it is again:

What I make out of them is that they are quite irrelevant. If physicists see that a certain theory has an appeal to theists, so what? Does this then mean that the theist's argument is true? If many atheists you've met try to cover it up in semantics so what? Do you actually understand their counter arguments?

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> I surmise that north of the North pole should be a location in the North Pole (the Artic Circle) that will be at the topmost point of the Earth's hemisphere >>> I expect my compass needle to lie horizontally at that part of the North pole (or some other form of indication of my location)

Wow. This is simply absurd. First, you need to realize that the geographical North Pole is different from the magnetic North Pole. Secondly, your compass would do no such thing at the North Pole. Thirdly you have not answered the question which is, what is the place north of this North Pole?

Uyi Iredia:

All questions have meaning (sometimes the meaning is lost upon the hearers and, occasionally, the speakers of the question)

So, a question that has lost its meaning to the hearers actually has a meaning? When something has lost its meaning, what does that imply? If a corpse has physically lost its head how would you describe it?

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> you have an annoying habit of running away from tough questions >>> either by asking for 'evidence' or by plain dismissal >>> my conclusion: you are intellectually lazy

There are differences between tough questions and meaningless questions. That question is an example of the latter.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> the fact that you assume that I need to enter the field further goes to show your lack of imagination >>> more people than can be numbered have contributed greatly to singular/various fields of science from without (i.e outside of scientific circles) e.g Immanuel Kant, Baruch Spinoza, Leonhard Euler, Bertrand Russell, Hypatia, Alexander The Great, Adolf Hitler, John F. Kennedy, Bill Gates, Euclid, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing, Arthur Clarke e.t.c

My my. You are simply being absurd here. Do you think I mean contributing to the field by donations? Keep in mind that you are referring to a particular scientific field of physics. Please what field of science did Hitler contribute to?
Contributing to our scientific field especially in these times requires knowledge of core concepts so your sitting around day-dreaming just doesn't cut it no matter how much you may wish it did.

Uyi Iredia:

since u do not have time to go digging around >>> you can never find the treasure-chest of truth (the mud around will suffice as your gold) >>> u are lazy, no wonder your lack of inclination for that which is philosophical >>> I hope say u no be 'follow-follow' atheist

My my. You really like sitting around and accusing others of being lazy while you attempt to send them off on wild goose chases. I simply asked you to present the best argument that you best understood. I'm not going to waste my time digging around for what you don't understand or what some random person posts on their blog.
So, if you are not lazy, why don't you actually try and do the work of understanding this argument, presenting it and defending it.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> summary of my previous answer: u are wrong, there are an infinite order/number of atoms present and more that will be engineered (for specific purposes) >>> that is the goal of physicists

This is plainly wrong. Please see here.

Uyi Iredia:

Please read and digest an answer b4 replying

As to your questions:

- sub-atomic particles aren't atoms but they are responsible for the behaviour and attributes of atoms 
- most man-made elements ARE NOT atoms. It is very likely that atoms can be created (how can one create a new element without creating a new atom ? Especially, since atoms are the building block of an element ?) To be candid, I am even being too cautious in answering u. U seem to have a relatively shallow scientific background.

Why did you refer to them when I was speaking of atoms?
I have a relatively shallow scientific background? This coming from a person who does not realize that the atoms in the universe is actually finite? Wow. This appears to be a clear demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> this is a circular question: It was QUITE EXPLICITLY dealt with in my the topic post. Here's an important paragraph you should note:

What on earth is a circular question?

Uyi Iredia:

Uyi Iredia:
I submit to you that the cause (error) of the science-religion debate is this. The idea (science) is mistaken for the implementation of that idea (the scientific method).

A man who seeks for a scientific discovery is no different from the man who seeks SOMETHING he does not fully know (i.e the state of being ignorant) to get something he fully understands (HAS COME TO LIGHT). The path of knowledge is a journey that already has be flown through by faith. Faith believes because it exists outside of time. Science believes and works out the details in space (I choose not to not mention time because TIME is a thing of the mind)  The problem is that working out details takes a long time.

This is simply you rambling away and getting yourself confused yet again.
You are simply confusing a hypothesis with the scientific method in your first paragraph above.
Faith now exists outside of time? It seems you really need to invest some time in learning how to use words appropriately. e.g what do you mean by faith here that makes it exist outside of time? Sheesh.

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> this is not a fallacy, It follows well. >>> Mathematicians define new constants and variables into existence by the day >>> Linguists and Semanticists define new words into existence (some which stand for an abstract object) >>> you are shallow in your scope and this is the weakness of a Skeptics position (from whence modern day atheists base their philosophy) >>> I'd even rate a cynic better

Again, you get yourself confused. Are words objects? Are numbers objects? Is God an abstract object? It seems I appear shallow because you're simply making confused ramblings. When you actually have something relevant, let me know.
Why don't you actually clearly delineate this claimed weakness? You're free to rate whomever you want however you want.

Uyi Iredia:

furthermore, I used a simple inductive process which I will syllogise for clarity:

- All observed sentient beings create
- God is an (assumed primordial) sentient being
- God has the ability to create

My goodness. This is terrible. I really hope you did not learn this from an actual philosophy teacher. Who assumes this God? This assumed primordial? How is it sentient? Have you considered that all sentient beings are physical? Is God physical?
You see you are again defining your God into existence. This is terrible for a person who keeps name dropping philosophers. Please just go and do your work. I don't want to accuse you of being lazy.

Uyi Iredia:

tackling it from your 'flying car' happenstance; Here's my answer:
Suppose there is no flying car in concrete existence (there is) and one has only imagined of how this flying car would be like (i.e its attributes) >>> a skeptical person can dismiss the feasibility of such flying car being made; and it being just a daydream and therefore non-existent >>> but if such a car were made we talk about it (thoughts of the flying car) being brought to reality

So how does the thought of the existence of a flying car mean God exists? You have still failed to connect the dots.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> the lesson that can be gotten from this is that: Thoughts, though abstract, are real and have effects that impress upon (concrete) reality >>> it so happens that one can rightly infer that a God (a necessary uncaused cause) thought of and made the universe we now enjoy. >>> Like thought, God exists outside of space and time. Like thought, God has control over space and time, albeit, at an infinitely greater capacity than humans can reach.

Again, you are defining your God into existence. Or simply going for the fallacy of special pleading because one cannot infer your God due to the fact that we have a universe. How does an uncaused cause think? Do you wish to define its brain into existence too?

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> your reasoning is poor >>> it is a concealed way of running away from the truth it explicates (that the answer you forwarded is an inappropriate one) >>> I asked for what (naturally) caused time and you forwarded properties of time and you gave me attributes of time as the answer. I had even rephrased my question earlier (when I asked for the state that preceded the Big Bang) and you played dumb

How is that poor reasoning? Pointing out to you that time is a property of the universe is poor reasoning? Wow.
I didn't play dumb. I pointed out to you that that was a meaningless question.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> I specifically chose snooker-balls because they (like our universe follow the laws of Newtonian mechanics and relativity - or do you think relativity applies only to galactic bodies ?) >>> I get time to finish you today >>> I'll kill your questions - and the notions therein - sequentially

Please go ahead. I hope you first realize that relativity breaks down at the singularity so your snooker balls that assumes a pusher simply does not apply.

Uyi Iredia:

- If you even replace God with Yeti, leprechauns, Bigfoot or King Kong; my snooker-ball analogy still holds true >>> God can be defined in terms of any of His creations (if u desire, you can call him a love-peddler). Lemme iterate 2 quotes to you, until understudy them u (and can clarify) will be a simpleton as regards what God is and its attributes.

"Deus sive Natura. God (is expressed) through Nature"
- Baruch Spinoza

"God Is. But does not exist"
- [bSoren Kierkegaard[/b]

So God can be defined in terms of imaginary creatures, plants and bacteria. You are making more and more absurd statements.
You really love quoting philosophers even one that says God exists and does not exist. i.e Schrodinger's God.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> BTW, lemme add that; I surmise that the (Christian) God is referred to as a He because, its avatar came in the form of a male, Jesus Christ.

- SMH, what course did/do you study ? >>> I will do my cross-check of my textbook (just in case I'm wrong - though I doubt it). Einsteinian Physics is in harmony with Newtonian Physics. As a matter of fact, together they give a complete model of the universe we live in. All that theoretical physicists (like Stephen Hawkings) do is to fill in the blanks and work out the (infinite amount of) details.
I studied Einstein's theory of relativity in my 100-level >>> it seems like yesterday when I was solving problems on it >>> last time I checked, most crucial relativity equations and identities were (and still are) derivations of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion (and the equations thereof). Effects of relativity occur in Newtonian mechanics but are negligible (i.e small enough to be ignored). You have a sorry knowledge of the theory of relativity and I will stop taking you seriously on it. Please brush up on your knowledge. Be an informed atheist.

I love the way you just throw about scientific words mixing in wrong information and thumping your chest all at the same time. Please go and cross-check your text book.
Actually, the effects of relativity are negligible on certain scales but become very significant in others. This is the reason why it is used to explain the precession of Mercury as it orbits the sun so the effects of relativity are not always negligible. You may also wish to realize that we use Newtonian mechanics for ease of calculations but switch to the relativity when needed so there's actually one explanation but we use an approximation for simplicity.

Uyi Iredia:

- 'pushers' are needed in quantum mechanics as well. Electrons and other sub-atomic particles use ambient/artificial energy to 'push' themselves from one energy level to the next. All this is senior secondary school chemistry. thehomer, you are getting things twisted. BTW, saying that my question is QUITE meaningless clearly implies that there is some meaning to it (that you purposefully ignore because of its implications on your stance)

My my. It seems your ignorance here too needs to be addressed. Please tell me, who pushes the Carbon 14 to decay into Nitrogen?

Uyi Iredia:

- All things were CREATED to evolve >>> evolution is a creative process >>> saying that thinking evolved by itself (given some initial set of conditions) is incorrect thinking >>> current neo-Darwinian theories are sorely lacking and counter-intuitive because they argue that evolution of life is a bottom-up process. Whereas evolution, in an aspect of human endeavour, is due to an averaged compilation of top-down thought processes >>> evolutionary science can never progress till it acknowledges the fact that an intelligence (and I hope it's not an alien ) is what drives all evolutionary constructs >>> I end by killing the bad thinking, that effuses this part of your reply, with a quote

"An effect can never be its own cause. This is the fuel (maxim) that drives the scientific method."
- Uyi Iredia

- I have read parts from the Prof. Dawkins book in question. I also know enough from rudimentary English classes that titles
are phrases coined by authors to snapshot the message of their book. Answer my questions and stop chaffing.

Again, you wander into yet another field to vomit absurd and confused notions. Things were created to evolve? Who says they were created? Or you just assume it as you wander along? Can you think without a brain or a physical aspect?
So your problem is that it is counter intuitive therefore it is false? This is just your ignorance rearing its ugly head. You need to realize that the fact that you do not understand something does not make it false.
Yet you persist in calling others bad thinkers? I'll advice you to first remove the beam from your eye before you go about seeking to remove the mote from others.

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> it's okay they are as meaningless >>> that's because your questions are 'meaningless' questions that necessarily have an appropriate answer >>> I need to ask semanticists this question: How can a value 'meaningless' be assigned to something that supposedly has no value ? >>> besides it is obvious that you are not a free-thinker >>> because in free-thinking one does not discriminate anything >>> a free-thinker tasks oneself to find the truth in any mode of thought.

No a free thinker does not have to first adopt absurd contradictions and start trying to force anything to fit. That my friend is bad thinking. So please avoid asking meaningless questions.

Uyi Iredia:

*14 >>> you are making noise >>> imputing your own meanings into my posts and distorting them >>> I beseech you to stop this nonsense ! >>> First, EAT Spinoza's book "Ethics" b4, DIGEST its contents then come back to me

What does Ethics have to do with this?
Those are direct implications of what you said. This is another example of unclear thinking. You need to learn that what you say has implications that one can logically draw out from them. If you do not like such conclusions, then please do not come to me with rubbish like God is a thought that created people and Christianity seeks out thought. Please avoid such absurdities.

Uyi Iredia:

Meanwhile, there are 2 questions I would use to burst your bubble
- How did Life pop out ?
- Did The Big Bang pop itself into existence ?

Answer these questions. Then I will return the favour by answering your puerile questions

What do you consider life to be?
Recall that there was a singularity state.
Please, go ahead and answer my questions. The fact that you think they are puerile only goes to show the sort of absurd notions you keep introducing without backup.

Uyi Iredia:

*15 >>> to your first question>>> it does not >>> instead it begins to direct one to evolution for answers - as you just did ? >>>

To your second question >>> I have checked on naturalistic explanations on the evolution of the eye (and of thought - q.v) and found them incomplete (I have written personal essays rebutting such explanations) >>> evolutionists (as far as I know) do not have a round-table theory on how the human brain evolved (evolutionary neuroscience will most likely be nascent) >>> u are now subtly forwarding the hogwash that evolutionary psychologists present as to how humans evolved their ability to abstract >>> Now get this into your psyche, it is thought that drives, produces and observes evolution - not the other way around

What was incomplete about the evolution of the eye?
How the brain evolved? Are you joking? Do you actually understand anything about evolution?
You are again making assertions. You need to back them up with something better than other assertions.
It sounds like you really need to educate yourself on what evolution actually is so you don't sound so ignorant.

thehomer:

My goodness. This is terrible. I really hope you did not learn this from an actual philosophy teacher. Who assumes this God? This assumed primordial? How is it sentient? Have you considered that all sentient beings are physical? Is God physical?
You see you are again defining your God into existence. This is terrible for a person who keeps name dropping philosophers. Please just go and do your work. I don't want to accuse you of being lazy.
*1

So how does the thought of the existence of a flying car mean God exists? You have still failed to connect the dots.
*2

Again, you are defining your God into existence. Or simply going for the fallacy of special pleading because one cannot infer your God due to the fact that we have a universe. How does an uncaused cause think? Do you wish to define its brain into existence too?


How is that poor reasoning? Pointing out to you that time is a property of the universe is poor reasoning? Wow.
I didn't play dumb. I pointed out to you that that was a meaningless question.*3


Please go ahead. I hope you first realize that relativity breaks down at the singularity so your snooker balls that assumes a pusher simply does not apply.*4


So God can be defined in terms of imaginary creatures, plants and bacteria. You are making more and more absurd statements.
You really love quoting philosophers even one that says God exists and does not exist. i.e Schrodinger's God.  *5


I love the way you just throw about scientific words mixing in wrong information and thumping your chest all at the same time. Please go and cross-check your text book.
Actually, the effects of relativity are negligible on certain scales but become very significant in others. This is the reason why it is used to explain the precession of Mercury as it orbits the sun so the effects of relativity are not always negligible. You may also wish to realize that we use Newtonian mechanics for ease of calculations but switch to the relativity when needed so there's actually one explanation but we use an approximation for simplicity.*6


My my. It seems your ignorance here too needs to be addressed. Please tell me, who pushes the Carbon 14 to decay into Nitrogen?*7


Again, you wander into yet another field to vomit absurd and confused notions. Things were created to evolve? Who says they were created? Or you just assume it as you wander along? Can you think without a brain or a physical aspect?
So your problem is that it is counter intuitive therefore it is false? This is just your ignorance rearing its ugly head. You need to realize that the fact that you do not understand something does not make it false.
Yet you persist in calling others bad thinkers? I'll advice you to first remove the beam from your eye before you go about seeking to remove the mote from others.*8


No a free thinker does not have to first adopt absurd contradictions and start trying to force anything to fit. That my friend is bad thinking. So please avoid asking meaningless questions.*9


What does Ethics have to do with this?
Those are direct implications of what you said. This is another example of unclear thinking. You need to learn that what you say has implications that one can logically draw out from them. If you do not like such conclusions, then please do not come to me with rubbish like God is a thought that created people and Christianity seeks out thought. Please avoid such absurdities.*10


What do you consider life to be?
Recall that there was a singularity state.
Please, go ahead and answer my questions. The fact that you think they are puerile only goes to show the sort of absurd notions you keep introducing without backup.*11


What was incomplete about the evolution of the eye?
How the brain evolved? Are you joking? Do you actually understand anything about evolution?
You are again making assertions. You need to back them up with something better than other assertions.
It sounds like you really need to educate yourself on what evolution actually is so you don't sound so ignorant.*12

*1 >>> is a corpse also sentient ? Do physical objects display sentience ? is sentience an abstract term or a concrete term ?

*2 >>> How did I fail to connect the dots ? Do objects effectuate themselves or are they defined into existence (by pre-existent beings) ? 

*3 >>> then prove me wrong >>> how are you correct ? >>> since my question is meaningless could you explain how it is so ?

*4 >>> how does the theory of relativity break at the singularity ?how does this null my analogy ? Do you have evidence for all these claims ?

*5 >>> it is clear to me that you either misunderstand my posts or you ignore the implications thereof 

*6 >>> given ur reply ? How does my snookerball analogy fail ?

*7 >>> this can be artificially done >>> BTW, radioactive elements are pushed by cosmic radiation that fill our universe >>> BTW address my ignorance instead of asking questions 

*8 >>> ok, so I am correct in seeing that you are blinded by the mote in your eye ? >>> you thrive on peccadilloes 

*9 >>> your ignorance rears it's ugly head yet again

*10 >>> and here too >>> could you please explain HOW my statements are absurd ?

*11 >>> so this is the answer to the 2 questions I asked !!! huh ! Are you joking ?

*12 >>> same here >>> nothing worthwhile

thehomer:

Develop away.*1


You are as usual simply asserting that a "Christian God created Nature". What evidence do you have for this? Why should an ancient Greek believe that a Christian God created nature?*2




Are you using Aristotle's Laws of Thought as your basis for discussing time in physics?
Do you think time is infinite?
How many infinite phenomena or concepts do you know that have a definite beginning?
What was ridiculous about the post?*3


Would you still believe your grandfather if he said "I was at a shop buying groceries when I was informed that your father was born".
If expert opinion really bears no weight with you then what you have just demonstrated is hubris, foolishness or a predilection to not speaking the truth. Seriously, if a medical doctor advices you that your child needs regular insulin shots to control his diabetes, would you really discount his expert opinion? How about if your airplane mechanic advices you that you need to service this jet so cannot use it for a while will you ignore him?
Do you really think that you can actually live a productive life in these times without lending weight to expert opinion? Wow*4


Of course I will discriminate on what they read based on their ages. So what if Ben Carson said that. Could you not have arrived at that conclusion on your own? What is the relevance of whether or not Ben Carson made that quote?*5


What I make out of them is that they are quite irrelevant. If physicists see that a certain theory has an appeal to theists, so what? Does this then mean that the theist's argument is true? If many atheists you've met try to cover it up in semantics so what? Do you actually understand their counter arguments?*6


Wow. This is simply absurd. First, you need to realize that the geographical North Pole is different from the magnetic North Pole. Secondly, your compass would do no such thing at the North Pole. Thirdly you have not answered the question which is, what is the place north of this North Pole?*7


So, a question that has lost its meaning to the hearers actually has a meaning? When something has lost its meaning, what does that imply? If a corpse has physically lost its head how would you describe it?*8


There are differences between tough questions and meaningless questions. That question is an example of the latter.*9


My my. You are simply being absurd here. Do you think I mean contributing to the field by donations? Keep in mind that you are referring to a particular scientific field of physics. Please what field of science did Hitler contribute to?
Contributing to our scientific field especially in these times requires knowledge of core concepts so your sitting around day-dreaming just doesn't cut it no matter how much you may wish it did.*10


My my. You really like sitting around and accusing others of being lazy while you attempt to send them off on wild goose chases. I simply asked you to present the best argument that you best understood. I'm not going to waste my time digging around for what you don't understand or what some random person posts on their blog.
So, if you are not lazy, why don't you actually try and do the work of understanding this argument, presenting it and defending it.*11


This is plainly wrong.*12 Please see here.


Why did you refer to them when I was speaking of atoms?
I have a relatively shallow scientific background? This coming from a person who does not realize that the atoms in the universe is actually finite? Wow. This appears to be a clear demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.*13


What on earth is a circular question?*14


This is simply you rambling away and getting yourself confused yet again.
You are simply confusing a hypothesis with the scientific method in your first paragraph above.
Faith now exists outside of time? It seems you really need to invest some time in learning how to use words appropriately. e.g what do you mean by faith here that makes it exist outside of time? Sheesh.*15


Again, you get yourself confused. Are words objects? Are numbers objects? Is God an abstract object? It seems I appear shallow because you're simply making confused ramblings. When you actually have something relevant, let me know.
Why don't you actually clearly delineate this claimed weakness? You're free to rate whomever you want however you want*16

*1 >>> okay  >>> I hope you mind doesn't rot away; because you fail to sharpen it on the grinding wheel of abstraction

*2 >>> you do not read well and you do not know when to ask questions >>> worse yet, you ask questions without flexing your mental muscles, to guesstimate the proper answer

the (anecdotal) evidence I'll present is one u should do well to STUDY. They include: Gen 1 (as answer to how the Christian God created Nature), Romans and I Corinthians (as to how the gospel was spread across Roman-Grecian peoples that inhabited the Mediterranean region)

you have done a poor job of evaluating the Bible >>> no wonder you eagerly dismiss it. 

*3 >>> one word for this piece (of reply) >>> nonsense !

*4 >>> expert opinion does not equate to correct opinion >>> as for your last question >>> greats like Gandhi and Buddha have dealt a head blow to the underlying philosophy >>> BTW, I'd say that Amazonian tribes and Aboriginal people do not need expert opinion - it's even the other way around !

*5 >>> then you are slave thinker >>> my dad hardly made that mistake with me - excepting some risqué books on Kama Sutra he once bought (and I even still found a way to get them to skim thru 'em) >>> kids have a natural hunger for knowledge that age tends to diminishes one slips into life's doldrums

*6 >>> this reply is facile >>> however I needs keep my word: I will base my clarification on the questions you forwarded

- so physicists and philosophers should abstract these metaphysical implications and forward the results thereof (which I am sure have a disastrous consequences for popular skeptic worldview)
- yes, it does >>> Even DeepSight tried all he could to drive this in (how the deists and theist position resonate with the current universal model which factors in the Big Bang) and your ignorance hung on - and still does >>> b4 the Big Bang, I'm well aware that atheists were bragging about how the universe existed infinitely (and mocked theological posits)
- so they know they are wrong and hide it >>> or they pretend they are right
- I am well aware of their arguments (and I keep myself up-to-date on them) and I must say that their arguments are shallow

*7 >>> now your questions here are redundant >>> I have answered all of 'em 

*8 >>> if it has no meaning, how did it's meaning, get lost ?!  

*9 >>> more symptoms of your mental laziness

*10 >>> Hitler was the one who started the World War II by his needless attack on Poland >>> the scientific and technological breakthroughs of the 21st century are a direct result of the chaos of that disaster

*11 >>> I have caught my goose and I'm now eating roast duck >>> now go catch your wild goose >>> must a hunter do it for u ?!

*12 >>> I did not see anything that falsified what I said here >>> besides you seem to make a 'shift in scope' fallacy here

*13 >>> Since you know that they have a limit, could you tell me how many atoms we have (as at present) ? 

*14 >>> def of circular question: forwarding an opponent's reply as a question 

*15 >>> u are veering of course >>> I have adduced parts of my original post that supported my stance that >>> materialism is an ideal >>> do you agree or not ?

*16 >>> I will play the fool here and beseech you to explain and answer your own questions on this part of my reply >>> that way I will know how to tailor a requisite answer >>> please do not run away and answer your own questions

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> is a corpse also sentient ? Do physical objects display sentience ? is sentience an abstract term or a concrete term ?

Wow. Did you really study philosophy at any level? I said all minds have a physical basis this does not mean that all physical objects have minds. Your attempt of presenting irrelevant questions is not good because we were talking about the nature of minds, their physical basis and the nature of your God.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> How did I fail to connect the dots ? Do objects effectuate themselves or are they defined into existence (by pre-existent beings) ?

There are numerous objects that are not defined into existence. Let me give you three.
The hydrogen molecule
The sand on the sea shore
The waters in the ocean.

You failed to connect the dots by saying. I can think of a flying car therefore God exists. How does the premise lead to that conclusion?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> then prove me wrong >>> how are you correct ? >>> since my question is meaningless could you explain how it is so ?

To present good ideas, it's not proving your opponent wrong that matters but whether or not the ideas are valid and sound.
Your question is meaningless because you're attempting to reference a time frame for which you have no value. To put it in programming terms, it's attempting to reference a non-existent variable which in good programming languages throws up an error.
I am correct because we have physical measurable evidence showing that our time reference commenced at the big bang.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> how does the theory of relativity break at the singularity ?how does this null my analogy ? Do you have evidence for all these claims ?

It simply does. Look it up. Your analogy is flawed because at the singularity, we do not even have atoms to behave in the way you're describing. The evidence is widely available. Look it up on Wikipedia, your favourite encyclopaedia or text book.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> it is clear to me that you either misunderstand my posts or you ignore the implications thereof 

I understood it clearly. You (or the person you were quoting) referred to a sort of Schrodinger's God. Plus one you wish to describe as bacteria or any other living entity. You're free to clarify.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> given your reply ? How does my snookerball analogy fail ?

See above.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> this can be artificially done >>> BTW, radioactive elements are pushed by cosmic radiation that fill our universe >>> BTW address my ignorance instead of asking questions 

This is plainly wrong. Cosmic rays do not push Carbon 14 to decay to Nitrogen 14. Cosmic rays cause the production of Carbon 14 from Nitrogen 14. I thought your knowledge of science was deep. This is yet another basic fact you need to look up. I'm ready to address certain degrees of ignorance (as I've done above). Other degrees must be worked on by the other party. Besides, you claimed to have a deep scientific knowledge please demonstrate this.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> ok, so I am correct in seeing that you are blinded by the mote in your eye ? >>> you thrive on peccadilloes 

No. I'm saying the sequia log in your eye is making you think you can see a mote in mine.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> your ignorance rears it's ugly head yet again

It is not ignorance but prudence otherwise one would waste his time sitting down and actively planning on how to protect their family from marauding minotaurs. Your misconception of free thinking is where the error lies.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> and here too >>> could you please explain HOW my statements are absurd ?

It is absurd because people do not believe a thought died on the cross neither do they pray to a thought to heal their children.

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> so this is the answer to the 2 questions I asked !!! huh ! Are you joking ?

Those are not answers. The first is a request for clarification, the second was to verify whether or not you understood an important concept.

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> same here >>> nothing worthwhile 

Nothing worthwhile? You presented certain notions on evolution without being able to defend them and you were not able to answer the questions I posed to gauge your understanding of what you said and you close by saying nothing worthwhile? Wow. And you call others lazy.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> okay  >>> I hope you mind doesn't rot away; because you fail to sharpen it on the grinding wheel of abstraction

Pah. A pointless ineffectual attempt at a jab.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> you do not read well and you do not know when to ask questions >>> worse yet, you ask questions without flexing your mental muscles, to guesstimate the proper answer

the (anecdotal) evidence I'll present is one u should do well to STUDY. They include: Gen 1 (as answer to how the Christian God created Nature), Romans and I Corinthians (as to how the gospel was spread across Roman-Grecian peoples that inhabited the Mediterranean region)

you have done a poor job of evaluating the Bible >>> no wonder you eagerly dismiss it. 

This is so absurd that I feel dirty having to speak about it. So according to you, the Bible says God did it therefore God did it? This from a self acclaimed philosopher who has been name dropping philosophers? So the ancient Greeks should believe this because it was written in Jewish books? My my <tut tut> this is terrible.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> one word for this piece (of reply) >>> nonsense !

A self acclaimed hard worker is unable to answer pertinent questions yet persists in calling others lazy? Do you think those questions were meaningless or were you simply unable to answer?

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> expert opinion does not equate to correct opinion >>> as for your last question >>> greats like Gandhi and Buddha have dealt a head blow to the underlying philosophy >>> BTW, I'd say that Amazonian tribes and Aboriginal people do not need expert opinion - it's even the other way around !

This is of course a poor attempt at hand waving. My questions were whether or not you would trust the opinion of your medical doctor and that of your airplane mechanic. Will you trust their opinions or not?
What philosophy did Gandhi and Buddha deal a head blow to and how did they do it?
So Amazonian tribes and aborigines do not need the expert opinions of medical doctors? I feel ashamed to have to point out to you the huge benefits of modern medicine to the increased survival of the general human population.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> then you are slave thinker >>> my dad hardly made that mistake with me - excepting some risqué books on Kama Sutra he once bought (and I even still found a way to get them to skim thru 'em) >>> kids have a natural hunger for knowledge that age tends to diminishes one slips into life's doldrums

So you do not think that certain books are inappropriate for children of certain ages. Kudos to you.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> this reply is facile >>> however I needs keep my word: I will base my clarification on the questions you forwarded

- so physicists and philosophers should abstract these metaphysical implications and forward the results thereof (which I am sure have a disastrous consequences for popular skeptic worldview)

This is the problem with you. You want physicists to do the work of philosophers? Physicists are generally uninterested in such "metaphysical implications". They actually have deep mathematics and other tools to work with.

Uyi Iredia:

- yes, it does >>> Even DeepSight tried all he could to drive this in (how the deists and theist position resonate with the current universal model which factors in the Big Bang) and your ignorance hung on - and still does >>> b4 the Big Bang, I'm well aware that atheists were bragging about how the universe existed infinitely (and mocked theological posits)

You are simply demonstrating that you do not understand the counter arguments presented. And managed to also introduce a straw man because you are not addressing my position. Put more effort in trying to understand what I presented.

Uyi Iredia:

- so they know they are wrong and hide it >>> or they pretend they are right
- I am well aware of their arguments (and I keep myself up-to-date on them) and I must say that their arguments are shallow

I am yet to see you actually address the arguments I presented on the big bang. I wonder who is doing this hiding because you simply fail to address any of the arguments. The thread is still available if you wish to take it up.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> now your questions here are redundant >>> I have answered all of 'em 

If you still stand by what you posted, then you are simply wrong as I demonstrated there. This also shows your refusal to learn from correction.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> if it has no meaning, how did it's meaning, get lost ?!  

It seems you have again succeeded in confusing yourself. Remember that you were the one proposing a loss of meaning when I simply said it was meaningless.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> more symptoms of your mental laziness

You still refuse to take correction.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> Hitler was the one who started the World War II by his needless attack on Poland >>> the scientific and technological breakthroughs of the 21st century are a direct result of the chaos of that disaster

This is so dumb and funny. So Hitler is a physicist or a contributor to science because he caused a war? Please where did you study philosophy? This comes after I pointed out to you that I don't mean someone who contributed money and you come up with this? This is what you get when you name drop all over the place without actually thinking about what you're doing.

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> I have caught my goose and I'm now eating roast duck >>> now go catch your wild goose >>> must a hunter do it for u ?!

It seems you did not understand the argument you read on the blog so you wish for me to do your work. Please hard worker learn to actually understand the argument or position you wish to support before attempting to accuse others of laziness.

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> I did not see anything that falsified what I said here >>> besides you seem to make a 'shift in scope' fallacy here

You keep making the same errors over and over. I have corrected you before that you do not simply claim that a person committed a fallacy but you need to demonstrate it. Why are you unable to learn?
You did not see what was falsified? The very fact that the number of atoms in the universe is finite is a direct contradiction to your claim that the number of atoms in the universe is infinite. Please take English lessons and lessons in philosophy.

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> Since you know that they have a limit, could you tell me how many atoms we have (as at present) ? 

No. I will not permit this degree of laziness. Just click the link in my response #23 the twelfth paragraph.

Uyi Iredia:

*14 >>> def of circular question: forwarding an opponent's reply as a question

This is rubbish. If a person asks for a clarification is that a circular question?

Uyi Iredia:

*15 >>> u are veering of course >>> I have adduced parts of my original post that supported my stance that >>> materialism is an ideal >>> do you agree or not ?

Now you wish to dance away into something else that also appears irrelevant. But I'll answer this one.
Materialism is a philosophical stance which people choose to apply to various degrees. So, its an ideal in contrast to what?

Uyi Iredia:

*16 >>> I will play the fool here and beseech you to explain and answer your own questions on this part of my reply >>> that way I will know how to tailor a requisite answer >>> please do not run away and answer your own questions

You want me to answer my own questions? I'll answer if you can actually point out to me the parts that you do not understand because I may just have to advice you to seek out an English Language teacher before you start dabbling in your philosophy. So, Which of the questions did you not understand?

thehomer:

No it isn't. You were just demonstrating your genius all over the place by making some serious online diagnosis that have a predilection for being wrong. Sure you prefer the word "abstraction" that still does not mean what you're doing is not day-dreaming. Play with words all you like.*1


It is because what you presented was not good enough for me to come to a better conclusion.*2


Why should I assume the mentations of a religious person? Do you think I have a desire to go about trying every single religion to come to the conclusion that they are generally false or do you think I have a death wish to be stung by a snake?
A philosophical framework based on atheism? What do you think atheism is? What philosophical framework have you built based on theism?
Go ahead and critique evolution. Just be sure that you actually understand what it is about before you start trying to critique it so you don't appear ignorant.
It may appear asinine to you due to your lack of understanding which is why I would advice you to first try to understand what the theory actually says.*3


Meh.*4

 *1 >>> a most inappropriate reply >>> you are lazy

*2 >>> that is what you will >>> I can't force you against your will >>> you are the one who decides what is good and what is bad - I respect that fact

*3 >>> typical skeptic fallacy >>> asking questions to advance one's skepticism whilst forwarding no answers because of their stance >>> I would, of course, brush up on my current knowledge of evolution >>> please do the same, visit that website I forwarded to you earlier - at least for the sake of knowledge

"Knowledge is not stagnant. Education is a continuous and conscious drive towards self improvement and actualisation"
- Uyi Iredia

another bit I must add is this >>> at some point evolutionists will have to readmit Lamarckian model of evolution back into mainstream science >>> it has been ignored for too long >>> current findings in genetics give more credence to what Lamarck posited

*4 >>> stop bleating >>> start thinking and realise your self

Uyi Iredia:

 *1 >>> a most inappropriate reply >>> you are lazy

Here comes the day dreamer with his usual accusations of others being lazy. Get off your ass and actually do some work.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> that is what you will >>> I can't force you against your will >>> you are the one who decides what is good and what is bad - I respect that fact

Again you are mistaken. I'm not the one who decides what's good and what's bad, it's the quality of the evidence that you present.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> typical skeptic fallacy >>> asking questions to advance one's skepticism whilst forwarding no answers because of their stance >>> I would, of course, brush up on my current knowledge of evolution >>> please do the same, visit that website I forwarded to you earlier - at least for the sake of knowledge

Sorry but I won't waste my time doing that. If you're so convinced by the information you saw on that site, then show you're not lazy by understanding it, understanding the theory of evolution and presenting the problems that you see in the theory whether from that site or from somewhere else.

Uyi Iredia:

"Knowledge is not stagnant. Education is a continuous and conscious drive towards self improvement and actualisation"
- Uyi Iredia

another bit I must add is this >>> at some point evolutionists will have to readmit Lamarckian model of evolution back into mainstream science >>> it has been ignored for too long >>> current findings in genetics give more credence to what Lamarck posited

Here you go again with your daydreaming. This simply shows that you really do not understand the core principles behind the theory of evolution and Lamarckism because if you did, you would realize why it was discarded. You need to learn that science proceeds based on the strength of evidence not by simply trying out a discarded theory because it has been ignored for so long.
Your reference to genetics and Lamarck shows your misunderstanding. Genetic material is not affected in the way proposed by Lamarck.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> stop bleating >>> start thinking and realise your self

That response was not bleating, it actually has a meaning. I advice you to look it up.

A Deuce is a contradiction and therefore senseless 
A Deuce is The Devil and therefore meaningful

There are no lies
There is one truth 

There is a lie
There are no truths 

Space is purposeless
Time is purposeful

Evolution is intelligent
Revolution is dumb

God is primordial and necessarily eternal
Man is primary and certainly mortal

Singularity is an illusion because it is limited by infinite space
Singularity is a reality because it is the cause of infinite space

God is a doG and yet it is man's best friend
Man is a name and yet is still its worst enemy

An idea proves itself ipso facto
An ideate proves itself mutatis mutandis

Love does not exist
Hate does not exist
Nature does not exist
They are existence in and of themselves

Light can be refracted via a prism into varied COLORS
Truth can be apprehended via a mind to varied FORMS

The Bible is a code
The Universe is a program under implementation

Morality is artificial
Immorality is natural

Good is Evil in a form (depending on its zeitgeist)
Evil is Good in a form (depending on its zeitgeist)

Materialism has no scientific basis. 
God has no morals (as in holocausts)
God has no meaning (as in his sex)
God has no purpose (as in senselessness)
GOD is simply GOD (outside of space and time)

Anything can necessarily be explained materialistically
Everything can certainly be imagined idealistically

In the world of relativity, light is matter with a mass
In the world of mechanics, light is energy with a force

If light were ideally material, space will be infinite-large
If ideas were materially light, space will be infinitesimal 

A light is an idea; the dark is an unknown idea
Religion is an idea: Science is an unknown idea
(unknown = not fully revealed)

Science = Reason 
Religion = Faith
The problem is this: Reason is an idea and Faith is an idea

Ergo

Science = Idea
Religion = Idea

A true scientist knows that science is not done in the lab
A false religionist surmises that sacred book/rituals = religion

A false scientist surmises that white lab coats = scientists
A true religionist knows that religion is not practiced in places of worship but in the everyday life

A religionist tasks her mind to the ethereal (candle)
A scientist tasks her mind to the natural (dark)

In ethereal world anything goes as long as subscription remains
In the dark something happens as long as investigations occur

God is déjà vu
God is après moi

God does not perceive; she is not limited by space
Man does not perceive: she is limited by thought

Space limits thought
Thought perceives space

Football simulates the game of life (God is the referee)
Wrestling simulates the pain of death (Devil na the oga)

God described itself in a form when talking about the dEvil
dEvil described itself in a form when talking about God

God is his own Devil
Devil is his own God

I can imagine God laughing when he sees his children casting out demons (think MFM)
I can imagine God crying when he sees his children casting out angels (the 'witch children')

Demons are evil gnomes
Angels are good fairies

An angel is a soul made in heaven (not yet born)
A human is a soul born on earth (not yet judged)

Madness is corruption of the body
Saneness is corruption of the mind

Jack of all trades master of none (being a smart duncehead/dumb jackass)
Jack of all trades master at one (being a smart jackass/ dumb duncehead)

It takes a mind to apprehend good and evil
It tasks a mind to reckon wisdom and foolishness

Man is the only accuser in the garden of Eden
God was the only advocate in the garden of Eden

Ergo

Satan is God's image of how man fell from grace
Jesus is God's image of how man can attain grace

Truth is inborn 
Lies are outside

Babies are born with truth and learn the art of telling lies
Adults are cursed with lies and relearn the art of speaking truth

Jesus gets angry when we choose to follow Him
Jesus is happy when we aspire to passover Him

Bisexuality explains how corrupt man has become
Homosexuality explains how corrupt man is inside (himself)

Too much of wisdom amounts to foolishness
Too much of foolishness fains to wisdom

God can be apprehended solely by faith
God can be apprehended solely by logic

Ergo

To the measure you apprehend God, He rewards you 

Noah was the world's first shipbuilder
Noah was the world's first naturalist

Mythologies are truths shrouded in mysteries
Superstitions are truths covered by the sands of time

Of course, I do not expect you to understand all the deuces I have forwarded but this was the personal message I had for you. Of course, our debate over the message for DeepSight delayed me so much so that I doubt DeepSight ever got to read it. However, there are a (few) number of points that are intently meant to provoke you. I hope you dwell on them.