DeepSight:


I have no idea what you are on about. I dont see how a god comes into my position that there logically exists a timeline outside that which is said to have been created at the point of the big bang, and that there also logically exists something into which the universe is expanding. You appear to have created an adversarial position in your mind and are fighting it all by yourself. I am not interested in that imaginary war you are waging.

Neither am I interested in your unfounded claims.
Put away the scientific American article too, because the article on theoretical physics doesn’t support your delusions of “extra physical space”.
You are one step removed from the “energies, wave, frequency, matrix” types.

killyaselfie:


Neither am I interested in your unfounded claims.
Put away the scientific American article too, because the article on theoretical physics doesn’t support your delusions of “extra physical space”.
You are one step removed from the “energies, wave, frequency, matrix” types.

Cool.

DeepSight:

Oh ofcourse because most people are intellectually and spiritually lazy and take the path of least resistance. You are thus right here.

Whazzat mean, spiritually lazy?

TammieJo:

Whazzat mean, spiritually lazy?

I mean those who settle for most of the offering of religion - they are not inclined to sufficiently bestir themselves inwardly in order to come to an original perception of any kind.

I hope you are not one of those atheists for whom the mere use of the words "spirit" or "spiritual" raises alarm. For quite aside from the fact that there are many valid contexts for the use of these words, the mere fact that one rejects the fraud and manipulation foisted on most people by religion does not necessarily mean that one must altogether deny any notion of spirituality whatsoever.

DeepSight:


Don't get me wrong. I havent said that religiosity is part of the human psyche. I have said that there is something in the human psyche that leads people towards religion - a thirst, a longing for meaningfulness. I have also clearly said that its a thoughtless human who settles for what most of religion offers in response to this thirst.

We humans feel we should be more important than we are, thus the search for meaning. To me, that seems like a trick of perception due to our subjectivities.

DeepSight:


I hope you are not one of those atheists for whom the mere use of the words "spirit" or "spiritual" raises alarm. For quite aside from the fact that there are many valid contexts for the use of these words, the mere fact that one rejects the fraud and manipulation foisted on most people by religion does not necessarily mean that one must altogether deny any notion of spirituality whatsoever.

Since I value realism and try to be accurate, I often cringe at, and avoid using the word "spiritual" out of a concern that it will be misconstrued, as it has by many I have encountered -- at least more than most words. Now i'm curious. I would be interested to hear what you think are valid ideas of spirituality.

killyaselfie:


A beautiful mind you have. The way you write shows that you have knowledge about the history of these religions and the deplorable character of the priests.
The way they exploit people’s existential dread is very impressive. They give you the illusionary disease, then they give you the cure for it. I’m not surprised though, because when you figure out some of the esoteric meaning of these religions, you realize that the Magi, and other creators of gods, were indeed wise or maybe people are just very simple minded.
The concept of “original sin” is so stupid, that almost everyone should find it ridiculous, but they don’t. Their authority figures give them the disease and cure the disease with snake oil called Salvation. Snake oil has been profitable since ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Snake oil keeps the Italian spokesperson of a jewish god in Prada shoes and gilded palaces. Just look at Bergoglio. Talking about the Italians: Snake oil and greed influenced another Italian named Tommaso Parentucelli to grant Iberian monarchs the moral excuse to go looting and pillaging during the “age of discovery”.

I guess that’s what happens when you inculcate ignorance into young minds. It forms the foundation of their worldview and does a lifetime of damage. The damage it’s already done to too many Africans might be irreversible.

Some people on this forum will call knowledge evil or say that their god chose the Jews because only the Jews were worthy and they are inferior. Efficience and Steep, respectively.
These religions breed ignorant and inferior mindsets in black people at least.

Thank you killyaselfie, and a thousand likes to you for this write-up. We share the exact same sentiments. As far as I'm concerned, the scruples embedded in religious beliefs are beyond glaring to people who are honest to themselves.

TammieJo:

We humans feel we should be more important than we are, thus the search for meaning. To me, that seems like a trick of perception due to our subjectivities.

Perhaps! To be honest - who knows - it may very well be as you say. Its just that one doubts that purposeless capacities or capabilities exist - at least in this regard: one tends to lean towards the notion that the very fact that we are able to contemplate high philosophical and cosmological questions suggests that there is some proper reason such capabilities dwell in us.

Since I value realism and try to be accurate, I often cringe at, and avoid using the word "spiritual" out of a concern that it will be misconstrued, as it has by many I have encountered -- at least more than most words. Now i'm curious. I would be interested to hear what you think are valid ideas of spirituality.

Permit me to first ask if you conceive of yourself as a strictly material/ physical creature only. I will build my response upon what you say. Are there non-physical aspects to your being?

DeepSight:


No worries amigo.



To be clear, I havent done this. I have simply said that its not a blank slate - even saying that evolution has written quite a bit therein already.



What I have said is that there is an innate predisposition towards assuming causality in this reality and thus an innate tendency to ask the "why" questions. This neednt lead to religious belief though. It could lead to philosophy.



Oh ofcourse because most people are intellectually and spiritually lazy and take the path of least resistance. You are thus right here.



I havent said anything about magic, and I dont believe in magic. I am clear, however, that something cannot come from nothing - and if there is any belief in magic to be spoken about, then it is with regard to those who believe that something may arise from nothing. That, amigo, is what is magical thinking.



Please remember that I told you what the theist would say, not what I would say, and I also told you I am not a theist. All I did was to point out to you that there is clear reason to believe that there exist factors beyond "spacetime" as conventionally scientifically described. Incidentally reading the latest edition of Scientific American after our interaction, I came across an article that began to discuss just that. And i thought, wow, synchronicity. But the synchronicity became even more alarming when in the same magazine I found an article about children and what is imprinted on their minds! I just had to smile. The articles were even back to back - one following from another. Perhaps this conversation was fated. I will show you snapshots of the articles.

To the bolded: That is nurture. Not nature.

To the italicized: You're going down a very deep rabit hole and begging the question. If Something made everything happen at the beginning of spacetime, where did that Something come from? Did that Something come from nothing? It's turtles all the way down. At some point something DID come from nothing. Your choice is: 1) A Maker came from nothing. 2) The universe came from nothing. Pick which one. As with most things the simplicity of Occam's Razor fits best. The universe popped into existance naturally without a middleman, a maker, a something causing it to happen.

DeepSight:


I mean those who settle for most of the offering of religion - they are not inclined to sufficiently bestir themselves inwardly in order to come to an original perception of any kind.

I hope you are not one of those atheists for whom the mere use of the words "spirit" or "spiritual" raises alarm. For quite aside from the fact that there are many valid contexts for the use of these words, the mere fact that one rejects the fraud and manipulation foisted on most people by religion does not necessarily mean that one must altogether deny any notion of spirituality whatsoever.

Do enlighten us about five of these numerous valid contexts, please, now that we're in your exalted, spiritually hard-working presence, please.

Near1:


Do enlighten us about five of these numerous valid contexts, please,

Why five, why not four or six, thou wicked, eminently sinister and mischievous soul.

now that we're in your exalted, spiritually hard-working presence, please.

Easy on the sarcasm. I didnt intend to come across as painting myself as any better. Most of us are wanting in this, one way or the other.

Near1:


To the bolded: That is nurture. Not nature.

To the italicized: You're going down a very deep rabit hole and begging the question. If Something made everything happen at the beginning of spacetime, where did that Something come from? Did that Something come from nothing? It's turtles all the way down. At some point something DID come from nothing. Your choice is: 1) A Maker came from nothing. 2) The universe came from nothing. Pick which one. As with most things the simplicity of Occam's Razor fits best. The universe popped into existance naturally without a middleman, a maker, a something causing it to happen.

You havent given this quite enough thought. In no event can anything arise from "nothing." If you dwell soberly and properly on the questions here, you should soon enough come to see that the only possible answer is that there is something or the other, or there are somethings or the other, which have always existed.

Such are called self-existent things - philosophers refer to them as fundamentally "necessary" things - as opposed to contingent things. Please take a moment to research "necessary things and contingent things."

Self existent things cannot but exist. They are fundamentally existent by nature and it is with self-existent things that the root of reality can be found.

DeepSight:


You havent given this quite enough thought. In no event can anything arise from "nothing." If you dwell soberly and properly on the questions here, you should soon enough come to see that the only possible answer is that there is something or the other, or there are somethings or the other, which have always existed.

Such are called self-existent things - philosophers refer to them as fundamentally "necessary" things - as opposed to contingent things. Please take a moment to research "necessary things and contingent things."

Self existent things cannot but exist. They are fundamentally existent by nature and it is with self-existent things that the root of reality can be found.

Au contraire, mon ami. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Once again, you have two choices 1) A Maker came from nothing. 2) The universe came from nothing.

Which is it gonna be? Something somewhere at some time came from nothing so you're stuck and don't want to admit it.

Near1:


Au contraire, mon ami. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Once again, you have two choices 1) A Maker came from nothing. 2) The universe came from nothing.

Which is it gonna be? Something somewhere at some time came from nothing so you're stuck and don't want to admit it.

Not at all my sinister and most tightfisted friend. Nothingness, you see, does not exist. The word "nothing" refers to "no-thing" - and as such is frankly a concept quite beyond all contemplation in these matters as well. I do not see just how you believe you can so automatically and so completely without grounds, so peremptorily - declare that the choices are limited to two impossible options. You will first have to show that it is conceivable for anything to emerge from nothing, before you present those two options in the first place.

As regards concepts of creation we have -

Creatio ex nihilo - which refers to creation from nothing
Creatio ex materia - which refers to creation from some previously existing matter, and
Creatio ex deo - which refers to creation from the substance of divinity

I say - that given that nothingness does not exist - it is inconceivable to speak about creatio-ex nihilo. But let me stop here because I am agnostic on the question of creation altogether: all I can tell you for sure is that the question of something arising from nothing is nothing short of subscription to voodoo and far worse than all the fairy tales in the world put together.

Once you have settled properly down to understand that -

1. Something cannot arise from nothing and
2. You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain

Then you would quite easily and quite naturally draw the correct conclusion that for anything whatsoever to exist, something or the other must always have existed - because if there was pure nothingness, then nothing would ever have come into existence, given that 0 + 0 = 0: in other words - no combination of nothingness could ever result in a somethingness. For that would be manifestly absurd, and magical thinking at its worst.

I would have thought that you would have asked me for examples of self-existent things rather than lose yourself with the non-starter of impossible options which you presented. Because by addressing yourself to the self-existent, you would immediately begin to understand why discussing nothingness, or things arising from nothingness, is a perfect and absolute non-starter.

I did ask you to research the philosophical meaning of "necessary and contingent things" - and you are well urged to indeed do so, for ignorance on that subject will render you perpetually incompetent to discuss this matter. Now, I understand ahead, that you are likely to ignore this advise, and rather keep insisting - without reason - on your two impossible options. If you do so, be warned however, that there may be nothing else I could possibly say to help you.

^^^^^^^ A whole lot of claims made with no support. You're about as agnostic on creation as the pope. Ha! It is to laugh!

.

DeepSight:


Why five, why not four or six, thou wicked, eminently sinister and mischievous soul.



Easy on the sarcasm. I didnt intend to come across as painting myself as any better. Most of us are wanting in this, one way or the other.

Wow, your attempts at sarcasm are even more pathetic than your attempts at intellectual discourse. It's actually embarrassing.

Very good then. I'll settle for three (it's a nice, meaningful number) valid meanings of the word spiritual.

And then, if you'd be so kind, a further explanation of what it means to be spiritually lazy and what is the opposite of such laziness.

Not that word salad about bestirring oneself inwardly, if you don't mind.

Unlike you, the vast majority of people do not speak gibberish. However "intellectual" it might sound to the intellectually poor.

DeepSight:


Perhaps! To be honest - who knows - it may very well be as you say. Its just that one doubts that purposeless capacities or capabilities exist - at least in this regard: one tends to lean towards the notion that the very fact that we are able to contemplate high philosophical and cosmological questions suggests that there is some proper reason such capabilities dwell in us.

Personally, I think the jury is still out on how adaptive human consciousness really is. Blind evolution does make mistakes, and we've only been around for a short while evolutionarily. We seem well-adapted for the short run, but I'm not so sure about the long run.

DeepSight:


Permit me to first ask if you conceive of yourself as a strictly material/ physical creature only. I will build my response upon what you say. Are there non-physical aspects to your being?

In my informed opinion, I am a strictly material/physical creature. Consciousness is both emergent and virtual. Do you understand the idea of emergence? So anything "spiritual" would necessarily be cognitive or virtual as well from my point of view.

Near1:


Wow, your attempts at sarcasm are even more pathetic than your attempts at intellectual discourse. It's actually embarrassing.

You see, we said it. A most wicked and mean spirited fellow. We could sense it immediately. How can you do me like this, with my grey hair.

Very good then. I'll settle for three (it's a nice, meaningful number) valid meanings of the word spiritual.

Dont be silly. Even the dictionary should suffice for various usages of the word "spirit." (- And I referred to this word, in saying "spirit or spiritual." )

Such as . . .

- the prevailing or typical quality, mood, or attitude of a person, group, or period of time.
"I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence"

- a person identified with their most prominent quality or with their role in a group or movement.
"he was a leading spirit in the conference"

- a person's mood.
"as I sat alone in that corridor my spirits were low"

- the attitude or intentions with which someone undertakes or regards something.
"he confessed in a spirit of self-respect"

- the quality of courage, energy, and determination.
"his visitors admired his spirit and good temper"

- the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.
"the rule had been broken in spirit if not in letter"

- enter into the spirit: join wholeheartedly in an event, especially one of celebration and festivity.

- in spirit: in thought or intention though not physically. "he couldn't be here in person, but he is with us in spirit"

- lift someone's spirits: cause someone to become more cheerful. "your kind words truly lifted my spirits"

- when the spirit moves someone: when someone feels inclined to do something

And then, if you'd be so kind, a further explanation of what it means to be spiritually lazy and what is the opposite of such laziness.
Not that word salad about bestirring oneself inwardly, if you don't mind.

That's no word salad, and if you think it is, thats your kettle of fish.

Unlike you, the vast majority of people do not speak gibberish. However "intellectual" it might sound to the intellectually poor.

Again, your kettle of fish.

Near1:
^^^^^^^ A whole lot of claims made with no support. You're about as agnostic on creation as the pope. Ha! It is to laugh!

As a response, this is both sadly lazy and depressingly escapist.
Enjoy.

TammieJo:

Personally, I think the jury is still out on how adaptive human consciousness really is. Blind evolution does make mistakes, and we've only been around for a short while evolutionarily. We seem well-adapted for the short run, but I'm not so sure about the long run.

Fair concerns.

In my informed opinion, I am a strictly material/physical creature. Consciousness is both emergent and virtual. Do you understand the idea of emergence? So anything "spiritual" would necessarily be cognitive or virtual as well from my point of view.

While I dont share the view that the human is "a strictly material/physical creature," your subsequent words express your take quite elegantly and I cannot but ask that we migrate this conversation here -

https://www.nairaland.com/6942843/matter-mind

- as my co-discussant there (LordReed) would clearly get on with you big-time. I believe you both share similar views in the matter of matter and mind: which we are discussing there.

DeepSight:


Not at all my sinister and most tightfisted friend. Nothingness, you see, does not exist. The word "nothing" refers to "no-thing" - and as such is frankly a concept quite beyond all contemplation in these matters as well. I do not see just how you believe you can so automatically and so completely without grounds, so peremptorily - declare that the choices are limited to two impossible options. You will first have to show that it is conceivable for anything to emerge from nothing, before you present those two options in the first place.

As regards concepts of creation we have -

Creatio ex nihilo - which refers to creation from nothing
Creatio ex materia - which refers to creation from some previously existing matter, and
Creatio ex deo - which refers to creation from the substance of divinity

I say - that given that nothingness does not exist - it is inconceivable to speak about creatio-ex nihilo. But let me stop here because I am agnostic on the question of creation altogether: all I can tell you for sure is that the question of something arising from nothing is nothing short of subscription to voodoo and far worse than all the fairy tales in the world put together.

Once you have settled properly down to understand that -

1. Something cannot arise from nothing and
2. You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain

Then you would quite easily and quite naturally draw the correct conclusion that for anything whatsoever to exist, something or the other must always have existed - because if there was pure nothingness, then nothing would ever have come into existence, given that 0 + 0 = 0: in other words - no combination of nothingness could ever result in a somethingness. For that would be manifestly absurd, and magical thinking at its worst.

I would have thought that you would have asked me for examples of self-existent things rather than lose yourself with the non-starter of impossible options which you presented. Because by addressing yourself to the self-existent, you would immediately begin to understand why discussing nothingness, or things arising from nothingness, is a perfect and absolute non-starter.

I did ask you to research the philosophical meaning of "necessary and contingent things" - and you are well urged to indeed do so, for ignorance on that subject will render you perpetually incompetent to discuss this matter. Now, I understand ahead, that you are likely to ignore this advise, and rather keep insisting - without reason - on your two impossible options. If you do so, be warned however, that there may be nothing else I could possibly say to help you.

In no event can anything arise from "nothing."

Then explain where the first cause came from.

nothingness, you see, does not exist.

Dodgy. Thus far scientists don't knows this for sure. We still have a so much more to learn so you're using an argument from ignorance. You could answer honestly with the phrase most physicists use...."We don't know."

You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain

Back to square one then. Where did the Maker of Stuff come from?

Don't get overly dizzy here.

LordReed:


Yes it's much more likely that they arose as a way to rationalise the hardships of life and to find motivation were they couldn't find it within themselves.

Yea exactly!

So sir, what advice would you give to someone struggling to find his or her self?

LordReed:


Yes I am an atheist. I haven't really done anything as method of consolation but I have children and when I look at them I feel the need to be there for them every way I can especially when I think of what they could become in the future, I want to be a part of that future. At some point I will incorporate meditation regularly but for now I only do it in small bits.

Wow, this is interesting sir. But do you really mean you don't find any way to console yourself? What of really painful situations? Do you just move on?
For your kids, they are lucky to have a very thoughtful and caring father like you!
You'll surely be a part of the future of your kids and you'll surely smile at what they turn out to become.

DeepSight:


You havent given this quite enough thought. In no event can anything arise from "nothing." If you dwell soberly and properly on the questions here, you should soon enough come to see that the only possible answer is that there is something or the other, or there are somethings or the other, which have always existed.

Such are called self-existent things - philosophers refer to them as fundamentally "necessary" things - as opposed to contingent things. Please take a moment to research "necessary things and contingent things."

Self existent things cannot but exist. They are fundamentally existent by nature and it is with self-existent things that the root of reality can be found.

If we accept (and I do) that QM shows acausal results but still relies upon exigencies (say, the existence of energy), well, that means any creator is still reliant upon a substrate .

So if this creator is inside the Universe, then it's subject to QM. If it isn't reliant upon QM and a substrate, if it is indeed "outside space and time", well, there's another baseless claim. And if it is reliant upon QM, is it really all-powerful

If there's no such thing as nothing, then this "creator" had something from which to form up, meaning that it isn't causeless, which removes a crucial plank of your point. And if it did come from nothing, then another one of your premises is removed from the discussion.

Oladimeji247:

If there's no such thing as nothing, then this "creator" had something from which to form up, meaning that it isn't causeless, which removes a crucial plank of your point. And if it did come from nothing, then another one of your premises is removed from the discussion.

I think you need to settle first on the understanding that nothingness does not exist anywhere and has never existed anywhere. Nothingness refers to no-thing and as such ascribing anything to nothingness is a contradiction in terms, Once you are clear on this point, you should be able to make progress.

I do not believe in a "creator" in the way that theists do, but let me speak for the theist here. The creator is not said to have "formed up" or come into existence at any point in time. The creator is said to be a necessary being, self-existent. Thus to have always existed. You will have to understand the philosophical difference between necessary things and contingent things to follow the discussion on this.

Near1:


Then explain where the first cause came from.

The first cause would necessarily be self-existent. It would not "come from" anything.

Dodgy. Thus far scientists don't knows this for sure. We still have a so much more to learn so you're using an argument from ignorance. You could answer honestly with the phrase most physicists use...."We don't know."

That nothingness by definition does not exist is not the prerogative of scientists to determine. We have of course seen some physicists (such as the renowned iidiot, Lawrence Krauss) try to hijack the word "nothing" and then use it in reference to "something" but that is contradictory and will not wash.

And yes, my position on most of these matters is "I dont know." By the way this is what the word "agnostic" refers to - which I have used a thousand times, but which you insist - on account of your obvious Gnosticism - that I am not.

Back to square one then. Where did the Maker of Stuff come from?

All else that exists could only arise from self existent things.
Dont worry, I will not get dizzy. I have devoted many years to thought on this already, and I would urge you to do the same.

Oladimeji247:


If we accept (and I do) that QM shows acausal results but still relies upon exigencies (say, the existence of energy), well, that means any creator is still reliant upon a substrate .

QM does not truly show any acausal results as physicists suggest, because before you can say that something is absolutely uncaused, you have to show that it emerges from nothingness - and nothingness does not exist anywhere in the universe. You have hinted correctly at this by referring to reliance on the existence of energy, and if you would settle down, this line of thinking could actually lead you to some answers.

So if this creator is inside the Universe, then it's subject to QM.

That would be contradictory, for how then could it be the creator of the same universe?

If it isn't reliant upon QM and a substrate, if it is indeed "outside space and time", well, there's another baseless claim.

I dont know about the existence of any creator, but as I have said repeatedly, it is logically obvious that there must exist a timeline and space beyond this universe.

DeepSight:


I think you need to settle first on the understanding that nothingness does not exist anywhere and has never existed anywhere. Nothingness refers to no-thing and as such ascribing anything to nothingness is a contradiction in terms, Once you are clear on this point, you should be able to make progress.

I think you need to support such a broad claim. Do you know that nothing has always been nonexistent?

I do not believe in a "creator" in the way that theists do, but let me speak for the theist here. The creator is not said to have "formed up" or come into existence at any point in time. The creator is said to be a necessary being, self-existent. Thus to have always existed. You will have to understand the philosophical difference between necessary things and contingent things to follow the discussion on this.

"He exists because he has to exist" is not a cogent argument. Support this point without recursive thinking or special pleading, please.

DeepSight:


QM does not truly show any acausal results as physicists suggest, because before you can say that something is absolutely uncaused, you have to show that it emerges from nothingness - and nothingness does not exist anywhere in the universe. You have hinted correctly at this by referring to reliance on the existence of energy, and if you would settle down, this line of thinking could actually lead you to some answers.

Again, you need to support your claim about nothingness.

That would be contradictory, for how then could it be the creator of the same universe?

Yes, it's a technique of reasoning to follow a line of thinking to its conclusion to see if it results in something useful or -- as here -- contradiction, or some other absurd conclusion.

I dont know about the existence of any creator, but as I have said repeatedly, it is logically obvious that there must exist a timeline and space beyond this universe.

"It's obvious" is another problematic thought. It's obvious as well that the Sun orbits the Earth.

Oladimeji247:


I think you need to support such a broad claim. Do you know that nothing has always been nonexistent?


. . . . Again, you need to support your claim about nothingness.

This is exasperating. Not just from you but from all of those who respond this way on the subject of nothingness. You guys, poker faced, demand proof that nothingness does not exist. What does the word "nothing" mean to you, if I may ask. What is the simple meaning of that English word. What does it refer to. Can you show me an example of nothingness perhaps? If that is impossible for you, as it should be, can you conceive of nothingness? The word "nothingness" is simple enough. It refers to "no-thing." - and that alone is enough to tell you that it is descriptive of non-existence. A thing that exists is referred to with another word - oh, you just may have come across it before - the word is "something." In spite of the obviousness of this, you guys will actually look at one and demand that one should prove that nothingness does not exist. To break it down for you, what you are asking for is virtually tautological - you are asking that one should prove that nothing is in fact, nothing. How that can make sense as a question is beyond me.

But perhaps one should not blame you guys. It is those careless quantum physicists who have muddied the waters for simple minds by pointing to existent things and describing them as nothing. I think as for me, I will save myself the repeated frustration and simply begin to refrain from responding to anyone who insists that I should show why nothing is nothing.

"He exists because he has to exist" is not a cogent argument. Support this point without recursive thinking or special pleading, please.

Perhaps you have not come across any thought on self-existence. A self existent thing is something that is existent by its fundamental nature. I did ask you if you are familiar with the philosophical concepts of necessary and contingent things. Please read up on that first otherwise i'm afraid the concept of self existent things may remain meaningless to you.

If I ask you to show me an example of nothingness, you would be unable to. But I can cite examples of self-existent things to you.

cc: Tammiejo / Near1

Oladimeji247:


"It's obvious" is another problematic thought. It's obvious as well that the Sun orbits the Earth.

I gave reasons for what I stated was obvious. Its obvious that there exists a timeline beyond the universe because the very big bang itself is an event and events can only occur in an timeline. Its obvious that there exists space beyond the universe because the universe is expanding. What could it be expanding into, if not already existent space?

AuthenticKing:

Yea exactly!

So sir, what advice would you give to someone struggling to find his or her self?

Most fundamentally accept yourself. Accept your strengths and weaknesses, realise that you are you and there is no need to become someone else. Next is to play according to your strengths, find opportunities where your strengths shine. Do everything in your power to minimise the opportunities where your weaknesses can be exploited. In all have fun being you.

Wow, this is interesting sir. But do you really mean you don't find any way to console yourself? What of really painful situations? Do you just move on?

I console myself by accepting that grief is part of life; cry, feel the pain then wipe your tears and carry on living. Find pleasure where you can and don't let the burdens overwhelm you. It's not a simple process but it's a realistic one.

For your kids, they are lucky to have a very thoughtful and caring father like you!
You'll surely be a part of the future of your kids and you'll surely smile at what they turn out to become.

Thanks, appreciate that.

DeepSight:


I gave reasons for what I stated was obvious. Its obvious that there exists a timeline beyond the universe because the very big bang itself is an event and events can only occur in an timeline. Its obvious that there exists space beyond the universe because the universe is expanding. What could it be expanding into, if not already existent space?

The current understanding is it is just expanding, there is no something it is expanding into. Yeah its counterintuitive but that is as far as out current understanding goes. One of the reasons i guess is because there is no light or any form of energy returning from what would have been the boundary of the universe.

LordReed:


The current understanding is it is just expanding, there is no something it is expanding into. Yeah its counterintuitive but that is as far as out current understanding goes. One of the reasons i guess is because there is no light or any form of energy returning from what would have been the boundary of the universe.

Lets be categorical and honest, its not just counterintuitive, its illogical. If a thing expands, there must be some space into which it is expanding.

PS: There cannot be any "current understanding" to the effect that the universe is not expanding into anything especially as no one has either been, or observed outside the universe, nor has anyone conducted any experiment or locked down any theory which shows just that conclusively.