Following from this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/817389/atheism-no-god-religion/8#11124875

My good friend Mr. Idehn had made the following exasperating contentions -

1. That there is as yet no plausible definition of the word "God" as to permit any discussion on whether or not God exists.

2. That the only things that may be considered as being existent things which we know of, are physical things.

3. That as such, as far as we know, God does not exist..

4. That time and space themselves exist only in the human mind and do not exist in and of themselves.

We had alot of trouble getting off the first point: namely Mr. Idehn's contention that there is no plausible (clear and coherent) definition of the word "God" as to permit any discussion into whether or not such exists. After much trouble, we agreed to accept the following definition for the purpose of this thread:

"God" - "A being said to have created the universe ex deo."

Creatio ex deo is a scenario whereby God is said to have created the universe from the substance of God's own being. This is as opposed to the scenarios of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and creatio ex materia (creation out of some other previously existing eternal substance).

Given that the universe is physical, Mr. Idehn has concluded that God under this definition (ex deo) must perforce be physical. I had pointed out to Mr. Idehn earlier that creatio ex deo does not necessarily infer that God is physical - it could for example mean that God had caused elements radiating from its eternal substance to become physical - nevertheless as any conception of anything non-physical is not acceptable to Mr. Idehn, I conceded, within the other thread, that only for the purpose of this discussion - I leave God as being physical.

I make this concesion to advance the discussion for the following reasons -

(a). It is not material to my argument

(b). My argument centres on the universe being caused by a pre existent force/ entity/ intelligence

(c). As such, the question of physical or non-physical does not matter for this specific thread - although I personally do not believe God to be physical.

Now, if, and only if we succeed herein in showing the necessary existence of a pre-existent entity necessary as having created this universe, then and only perhaps then can we return to the question of physical or non-physical[/b]. I should add though, that this may be unnecessary, and I should also add that it is a pipe dream on a sunny afternoon for me to think that Idehn will ever accede to such anyway, or agree to the existence of a pre-existent cause at all.

Having made room permitting us to scale the problems of Iden's contentions (1) - (3) above, it is my intention to argue the existence of God based on the premise of the Big B[i]a[/i]ng. However I encounter another problem here because Idehn claims that time and space infact do not exist, and that these are only ideas within our minds. Inherently, I believe that this is an absurd notion because without time and space there would have been no universe in the first place - and of course the universe predates all living things including us, and even the whole earth.

Such is the nature of difficult and i believe - radically unreasonable and unscientific contentions which Mr. Idehn has set up, that it is a marvel that we can discuss at all. Nevertheless, lets give it a shot. We will therefore be compelled to start from the otherwise absurd position of having to show that time and space exist at all, before we proceed.

So let's start with the Big B.[i]a[/i]ng.

The Big Ba.ng.

Extract from wiki-page on the Big Ban.g.

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago,[2][3] which is thus considered the age of the Universe.[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

POINT NUMBER ONE: The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Now as I go along, I will flag certain pieces of information the the way I have flagged "Point Number One" above. At the end of the thread, these flagged points will serve as my overall summary.

I flag the above because it is critical in that which I wish to put on the table - especially given that we are discussing with persons who claim to abide by and with science. We should thus aim to be as scientific as possible.

From the foregoing, we can see that -

1. The Big Ba.ng is indeed a well tested theory and from all observation of the universe thus far, is credible especially in light of the observed expansion of the universe.

2. The expansion we are speaking of commenced approximately 13.7 billion years ago. As such, the universe began to expandp at a time when there were no humans and no creatures within it, to conceive of a concept of space,

3. As such, there was space before the earth, humans or any creatures developed.

4. Any contention that there wasn't, would mean that the Big Ban.g could not have, or did not, occur.

5. As the diagram below shows -

While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big slam, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms.

On time -

1. The event called the big ban.g and the exopansion and progression therefrom are sufficient enough to evince a timeline as well. Indeed I am certain that no other scientist other than Mr. Idehn would make this patently self-contradictory claim that time did not exist and only began to exist as a figment of the imagination of creatures. Whatever else may be said, that is not what the science says.

2. Now take a close look at the extract above. You may have noticed it in the extract from my second post. Please take a look at the bolded parts. While these indicate a human method of measuring time, the implication is clear that a progression of time or timeline already existed from the big ban.g. It is thus untenable for Mr. Idehn to claim that neither time nor space exist outside the human mind or the mind of creatures. Creatures did not exist at the time referred to in the extract.

3. Really the poser normally should be a non-starter. We should ask Mr. Idehn very specifically this question -

- - - DID THERE EXIST ANY SPACE BETQWEEN THE SUN AND THE PLANET URANUS BEFORE LIFE EVOLVED ON EARTH?

- If yes, then space does not exist only in the mind of creatures

- If no, then neither the sun nor uranus exist, or are one and the same, undifferentiated.

Going to have to take a rain check on this conversation for about a week or two. To busy right now to have a proper in depth discussion. Till then.

No worries, Mr. Idehn, I can certainly wait. Afterall, these matters have been disputed centuries before you and I were born and will still be disputed centuries after we are dead.

Cheers.

Deep Sight: Following from this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/817389/atheism-no-god-religion/8#11124875

My good friend Mr. Idehn had made the following exasperating contentions -

1. That there is as yet no plausible definition of the word "God" as to permit any discussion on whether or not God exists.

2. That the only things that may be considered as being existent things which we know of, are physical things.

3. That as such, as far as we know, God does not exist..

4. That time and space themselves exist only in the human mind and do not exist in and of themselves.

We had alot of trouble getting off the first point: namely Mr. Idehn's contention that there is no plausible (clear and coherent) definition of the word "God" as to permit any discussion into whether or not such exists. After much trouble, we agreed to accept the following definition for the purpose of this thread:

"God" - "A being said to have created the universe ex deo."

Creatio ex deo is a scenario whereby God is said to have created the universe from the substance of God's own being. This is as opposed to the scenarios of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and creatio ex materia (creation out of some other previously existing eternal substance).

Given that the universe is physical, Mr. Idehn has concluded that God under this definition (ex deo) must perforce be physical. I had pointed out to Mr. Idehn earlier that creatio ex deo does not necessarily infer that God is physical - it could for example mean that God had caused elements radiating from its eternal substance to become physical - nevertheless as any conception of anything non-physical is not acceptable to Mr. Idehn, I conceded, within the other thread, that only for the purpose of this discussion - I leave God as being physical.

I make this concesion to advance the discussion for the following reasons -

(a). It is not material to my argument

(b). My argument centres on the universe being caused by a pre existent force/ entity/ intelligence

(c). As such, the question of physical or non-physical does not matter for this specific thread - although I personally do not believe God to be physical.

Now, if, and only if we succeed herein in showing the necessary existence of a pre-existent entity necessary as having created this universe, then and only perhaps then can we return to the question of physical or non-physical[/b]. I should add though, that this may be unnecessary, and I should also add that it is a pipe dream on a sunny afternoon for me to think that Idehn will ever accede to such anyway, or agree to the existence of a pre-existent cause at all.

Having made room permitting us to scale the problems of Iden's contentions (1) - (3) above, it is my intention to argue the existence of God based on the premise of the Big B[i]a[/i]ng. However I encounter another problem here because Idehn claims that time and space infact do not exist, and that these are only ideas within our minds. Inherently, I believe that this is an absurd notion because without time and space there would have been no universe in the first place - and of course the universe predates all living things including us, and even the whole earth.

Such is the nature of difficult and i believe - radically unreasonable and unscientific contentions which Mr. Idehn has set up, that it is a marvel that we can discuss at all. Nevertheless, lets give it a shot. We will therefore be compelled to start from the otherwise absurd position of having to show that time and space exist at all, before we proceed.

So let's start with the Big B.[i]a[/i]ng.

Deep Sight!!! Hats off to you on this very ambitious project. I look forward to the unveiling of your argument.

Alright, I think I will take some time this afternoon to build up my case before Idehn returns.

Deep Sight:
Alright, I think I will take some time this afternoon to build up my case before Idehn returns.

Permit me to interject (and I hope I am not being rude or presumptuous with my contributions) but I've been mulling over this for a while and I'm not entirely sure it is possible to show first cause within the constraints of physicalism.

Mr Idehn's current positions on space-time seem to make this even more difficult, if it were at all possible, because it leaves room for all sorts of claims like 'the universe is infinite and eternal' and 'all that we witness in the case of planet formations etc are nothing but conversions from energy to matter and matter back to energy'.

Therefore, any first cause that you argue would really be nothing more than a first state of the universe.

caezar:

Permit me to interject (and I hope I am not being rude or presumptuous with my contributions)

Absolutely not sir, you are most welcome indeed.

. . .but I've been mulling over this for a while and I'm not entirely sure it is possible to show first cause within the constraints of physicalism.

What the current science give us to know at the minimum is that the universe began to expand from a point. That commencement of an expansion shall be sufficient for the present purposes.

Mr Idehn's current positions on space-time seem to make this even more difficult, if it were at all possible, because it leaves room for all sorts of claims like 'the universe is infinite and eternal' and 'all that we witness in the case of planet formations etc are nothing but conversions from energy to matter and matter back to energy'.

I hope to show that Mr. Idehn's suppositions on time and space are both scientifically and logically untenable. Indeed I believe I have done this already in post No. 2 and 3 above, but will be willing to show even more reasons therefore.

Therefore, any first cause that you argue would really be nothing more than a first state of the universe.

This is a fair comment, but as I said the mere fact that there commenced an expansion at some point, will be sufficient to ground the premises I intend to use.

^^^
Even the theory of the expansion of the universe is very debatable as this theory is based on assumptions made from the point of view of astronomers based on earth. It is not based on a universal picture. The same way the sun appears to move from east to west whereas in reality it is stationary and it is the earth revolving round the sun.

Truth be told our knowledge of the cosmos is so infinitesimal that is almost impossible to make any definitive conclusion on a subject as remote as the origins or age of the universe.

The big bang fallacy is full of just too many untenable assumptions.

Pastor Kun: ^^^
Even the theory of the expansion of the universe is very debatable as this theory is based on assumptions made from the point of view of astronomers based on earth. It is not based on a universal picture. The same way the sun appears to move from east to west whereas in reality it is stationary and it is the earth revolving round the sun.

Truth be told our knowledge of the cosmos is so infinitesimal that is almost impossible to make any definitive conclusion on a subject as remote as the origins or age of the universe.

The big bang fallacy is full of just too many untenable assumptions.

You make a good point, but there are demonstrable observations of galaxies moving away from one another.

Pastor Kun:

Truth be told our knowledge of the cosmos is so infinitesimal that is almost impossible to make any definitive conclusion on a subject as remote as the origins or age of the universe.

!

Hallo Idehn. . . you asked for a week or two. . .its been about a month now. . .

Any intention to address this thread?

Hope all is well.

Cheers.

^^^ Just checked his profile. Don't think Idehn has been on this forum in a month.

Which is a shame, I have really been looking forward to the unveiling of this argument under the constraints of physicalism. I really believe that if you're able to make a good case for the cosmological argument, under physicalism, I would have some important clues for my own theories.

Hmmmm.............has logicboy,ooman et al not seen this thread??...........

They will gladly avoid..They are not thinker but social critics

^^

There are credible thoughts out there that posit space and time are articles as a result of human consciousness. We apparently view the world via our consciousness and as a lens, thru which we must describe our experiences through.

Immanuel Kant expressed his beliefs that space and time and external intuitions of the mind, which we can't shake off. Of course, this gets in trouble with objectivity.