plaetton:

Beautiful logic.
By the same token, So if god exists, god cannot come from nothing, so there must be something pre-existent and more permanent than god.right?

Eschewing the second part. This is what I expect my friend to see.

Lets not shift goal posts.

Wow, I leave the thread for a couple of hours and swoosh....eighty posts pass by. I won't say much, all I'll say to macdaddy, plaetton, mazaje et al is that holding a materialistic/naturalistic worldview will run you into many logical problems as has been evident in your difficulty to physically define your thought. I know you guys won't backdown but will continue chanting your mantra over and over again, I have come to accept that so I won't bother prolonging this unnecesarily.

I think we have come to an obvious conclusion which is that intangible entities exist. The only reason why you guys are not admitting it is because if you do, you would be accepting that there are such things that exist outside the natural and hence your materialistic worldview is shattered.

If you insist on sticking to your guns, then please be so kind as to take up my challenge.

Think of roast beef, tell us the physical length, breadth and depth of that thought as well as what it weighs. To clear all doubt, you can go a step further by holding it in your hand and taking a picture of it.

Failure to do this will lead us to one of two conclusions: it is either our existence is not limited to the material world or you are incapable of thought.

The other option you have when you have failed to do this is to admit that your materialistic worldview is faulty and then we can move on.

P/s: I am not interested in how many times you shout "epic fail" and "debunked". If you cannot meet my demands and won't be noble enough to admit the shortcomings of your position, then I don't think you deserve to have any more time wasted on you in this thread. Thank you

Mr_Anony: Wow, I leave the thread for a couple of hours and swoosh....eighty posts pass by. I won't say much, all I'll say to macdaddy, plaetton, mazaje et al is that holding a materialistic/naturalistic worldview will run you into many logical problems as has been evident in your difficulty to physically define your thought. I know you guys won't backdown but will continue chanting your mantra over and over again, I have come to accept that so I won't bother prolonging this unnecesarily.

I think we have come to an obvious conclusion which is that intangible entities exist. The only reason why you guys are not admitting it is because if you do, you would be accepting that there are such things that exist outside the natural and hence your materialistic worldview is shattered.

If you insist on sticking to your guns, then please be so kind as to take up my challenge.

Think of roast beef, tell us the physical length, breadth and depth of that thought as well as what it weighs. To clear all doubt, you can go a step further by holding it in your hand and taking a picture of it.

Failure to do this will lead us to one of two conclusions: it is either our existence is not limited to the material world or you are incapable of thought.

The other option you have when you have failed to do this is to admit that your materialistic worldview is faulty and then we can move on.

P/s: I am not interested in how many times you shout "epic fail" and "debunked". If you cannot meet my demands and won't be noble enough to admit the shortcomings of your position, then I don't think you deserve to have any more time wasted on you in this thread. Thank you

Epic fail.


I'm too weak to rebutt

Deep Sight:

Oh yeah, just like once upon a time the atom was the smallest particle, no?

Oh,and go back and read your link again. If you had read it, you would not have posted it.

Ah, knowledge is hardly absolute. Why then do we spar Sir ?

Deep Sight:

Give me an example of one single OBSERVED EVENT that you know has no cause.

We do not know the cause of virtual particles, which suggests they may be uncaused but doesnt state that they are uncaused.

MacDaddy01:
Emotions and thoughts are chemical reactions. We feel the emotions. I am going to self-service soon. Blood will rush to my gbola

I havent heard that word in ages.

Did you grow in the midwest?

Deep Sight:

Jayriginal's conundrum.

Not at all.

You set out as all knowing. You might have been able to rope me otherwise

Operative word being might (simply because I assert precious little)

mkmyers45: I brought up virtual particles and you refuted it but did not go on to tell me what causes them..Remember that you said also that nothing can never exist which i showed to be not true..

Deep Sight's conundrum.

He can only tell you they dont come from nothing.

I could be wrong, but very little was gained from all this.
All this, over an unverifiable spaghetti monster, and one wonders why the strife in this world when we have myriad religions each with their own unverifiable claims.
That's supposed to be part of FSM's point, actually. So, yeah, at least a demonstration of the FSM's effectiveness was gained

Deep Sight:

If you have studied visual illusions, you might be acquainted with the fact that what you see is not what is there. And this says alot. It says that that which is real can by no means be limited to our senses, as you earlier suggested. Even your partial color blindness says the same thing.

For Jayriginal, I add this - observation still remains the tool of science nonetheless.

Maybe Mr Anony can tell you my position on this.

Deep Sight:

WHAT! ! ! ! Is Plaetton same person as logicbloy ? ? ? ? ? ?

Hehehe

Of course they are not the same .

Epic Fail

I thought I was the only one that noticed

Lol.
I had fun on this thread but I'm heading over to the other to see if Mr Anony has replied me.

I have to respond while the "spirit" is still in me.

jayriginal:

I havent heard that word in ages.

Did you grow in the midwest?

Lagos.

plaetton:

Like the child in you, you are only interested in the entertainment section.

he he

What can I say? You got me You guys are great entertainment. Your reasoning is as comic as some of my average cartoons na lol

Ihedinobi:

What can I say? You got me You guys are great entertainment. Your reasoning is as comic as some of my average cartoons na lol

Yes indeed. We FSM disciples are comedic bunch, aren't we?

If we can wrangle for 10 pages over the Flying Spaghetti Monster and associated cosmological Nomenclatures, then that shows you the beauty and clearity of religious thought.
Do you agree?

Deep Sight:
Because the universe demonstrably had a beginning.

No it doesn't. The big bang model just explains the expansion of the singularity(universe) from the plack epoch to now, not the exact beginning. Since current studies haven't been able to explain events at that scale clearly, you feel God has to fit there.
There is no difference between your god and the gods that were supposedly in charge of rain when humans didn't understand the weather. Once we understood the weather, people stopped sacrificing virgins and "rainmakers" went out of business..........

Martian:

No it doesn't. The big bang model just explains the expansion of the singularity(universe) from the plack epoch to now, not the exact beginning. Since current studies haven't been able to explain events at that scale clearly, you feel God has to fit there.
There is no difference between your god and the gods that were supposedly in charge of rain when humans didn't understand the weather. Once we understood the weather, people stopped sacrificing virgins and "rainmakers" went out of business..........

Yeah. I still do not grasp how god can be seen as infinity, how god can be seen as eternity,which, by definition, means abstract nothingness, yet the same god is the permanent somethingness that designs and creates.

jayriginal:

The gospel according to Deep Sight.

No: that the universe had a beginning is the gospel according to the Big B.ang Theory; which is the best science on the matter to date.

I cant believe you were giving me advice on one thread and getting caught here.
sh it happens.

Can't remember. Which thread?

jayriginal:

Yup. But god can cause himself.

My bad, god is uncaused.

Jah Jehovah Emmanuel !!!

You see you have to seriously pause to be very rational in these discourses. It may have missed that I pointed out to you several times when we discussed the cosmological argument something cardinal. Namely that at ALL events, SOMETHING OR THE OTHER MUST be self existent: It is either a self existent cause of the universe, or a self existent universe. There's no escaping that one. You cannot have any other options whatsoever. If you state that it is an assumption that the universe had a beginning, then remember that the only other alternative is that it had no beginning, which would mean that it is self existent.

I therefore urged you to recognize that NO MAN can scoff at the concept of self existence: for EVERY MAN must needs accept one thing or the other as self existent, logically. It is either a self existent Cause or the universe is self existent. Therefore self-existence in itself is well grounded. The only possible question is if the universe is self existent.

It is my position that the universe cannot be self existent for two reasons -

1. Science: Best current scientific observations tell us that the universe commenced from a point with an expansion from a singularity. This indicates that it had a beginning AND as such cannot be self existent.

2. The universe is mutable, as I have sevrally explained, and as such cannot be self existent.

It thus seems to me that BOTH the science and the philosophy of the matter lead to the logical conclusion of a self existent cause. This is very simple reasoning and it surprises me that having repeated it so often, you only deride it as nonsensical without ever rebutting it.

It is not my gospel - it speaks for itself.

jayriginal:

According to your understanding

As shown above, it is open and fair reason and logic. If you have a different understanding, please show it to me for consideration, not so? It helps nothing to repeatedly advance as your only position the fact that you believe no one can or should have a position. I hope you realize that this "as far as we know" game which you play, or "according to your understanding" - is a game that can be applied to insist that we should all shut up and never advance any positions because whatever we may construe will simply be only "as far as we know" and "according to our understanding" and thus will amount to arguing from ignorance.

THIS attitude renders every discusssion meaningless. I will suggest that if that is all you have to bring to the table, then there is no point in your coming to the table. Really. Think on it.

And you call yourself Deep Sight when you cant differentiate between Spaghetti and Indomie

Lol, I want to assume you're cracking jokes here. The example remains the same, be it macaroni, spagetti, noodles or even flying egusi.

You know, the thing about you - and I mean this in good faith - is that you are seldom, if ever, to be seen tackling the meat of any matter. I don't know if it is a tactic or just a part of your "we don't know anything and should all shut up" attitude. I just wearies me because you are always happy to snack on side matters, petty distractions and most often even outrightly refuse to engage issues. You dont need to give examples, you say. You dont rely on science, you say. What then is the purpose having a discussion with you. Seriously, I mean this in good faith. How can you help teach me knew things with such an approach. Where is the added value?

It would be nice to see you focus more on the meat of discussions and actually put a foot forward, instead of hanging back where its dark and safe and you cant be said to have said anything, as you claim.

jayriginal:

Ah, knowledge is hardly absolute. Why then do we spar Sir ?

And this is an excellent example of my point about you above: shall we all pack our bags up, eschew discussions and cease to postulate our ideas on existence and the universe, since as you say, knowledge is not absolute, and it is at all events only our "limited view" always in operation, and as such all discussions are assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions, no?

What's the point making any point?

You have obviously taken that position and that's why you admitted that you do not put your foot forward on anything in discourses. That may be okay for you, but frankly does not bring anything to the table for anyone else. You are, in effect, without realizing it, asking us to stop thinking.

What's the point?

jayriginal:

We do not know the cause of virtual particles, which suggests they may be uncaused but doesnt state that they are uncaused.

Absolutely not: I do not know how you make these sorts of logical leaps. That we do not know the cause DOES NOT in anyway suggest that they may be uncaused SO LONG AS THEY ARE OBSERVED TO EMERGE FROM OR WITHIN SOMETHING.

This is very simple: and that you still do not appreciate it in your sarcastic offer through your riposte to mkmyers is simply that it is patently absurd to observe something emerging from another thing and consider that such an emergent thing may be uncaused. This is like seeing a beam emerge from liquid substance, and then stating that since we do not know what caused the beam, it could be uncaused. Surely, you know that this is bare faced illogic.

The only circumstance in which we can say that something MAY be uncaused is if we see it emerge from NOTHING AT ALL AND WITHIN NOTHINGNESS. Now this in itself is impossible for two reasons. First there is nothing like nothingness. Secondly, the very act of emerging, presuposes a cause or trigger, otherwise it would simply self exist as opposed to emerging at a point in time.

Martian:

No it doesn't. The big bang model just explains the expansion of the singularity(universe) from the plack epoch to now, not the exact beginning. Since current studies haven't been able to explain events at that scale clearly, you feel God has to fit there.
There is no difference between your god and the gods that were supposedly in charge of rain when humans didn't understand the weather. Once we understood the weather, people stopped sacrificing virgins and "rainmakers" went out of business..........

The B.ig bang Theory discloses a beginning for the universe to the extent that it refers to an event that occurred: an expansion.

It does not say that that expansion has been expanding eternally in the past, does it.

Thus the fact that it offers a timeframe for the occurence of the expansion [about 14 billion years ago] - it clearly presupposes a beginning for the universe.

Finally, if you were honest, you at least admit that the arguments I put there are not just "i dont know so God did it" - the God of the gaps. . . you know very very well that I argue for what attributes it would be reasonable to regard a first cause as having and proceed along those lines. If you know this, it is only fair for you to cease to dishonestly pretend that I am in some "Yahweh did it" zone. . . .

Mr_Anony: Wow, I leave the thread for a couple of hours and swoosh....eighty posts pass by. I won't say much, all I'll say to macdaddy, plaetton, mazaje et al is that holding a materialistic/naturalistic worldview will run you into many logical problems as has been evident in your difficulty to physically define your thought. I know you guys won't backdown but will continue chanting your mantra over and over again, I have come to accept that so I won't bother prolonging this unnecesarily.

I think we have come to an obvious conclusion which is that intangible entities exist. The only reason why you guys are not admitting it is because if you do, you would be accepting that there are such things that exist outside the natural and hence your materialistic worldview is shattered.

If you insist on sticking to your guns, then please be so kind as to take up my challenge.

Think of roast beef, tell us the physical length, breadth and depth of that thought as well as what it weighs. To clear all doubt, you can go a step further by holding it in your hand and taking a picture of it.

Failure to do this will lead us to one of two conclusions: it is either our existence is not limited to the material world or you are incapable of thought.

The other option you have when you have failed to do this is to admit that your materialistic worldview is faulty and then we can move on.

P/s: I am not interested in how many times you shout "epic fail" and "debunked". If you cannot meet my demands and won't be noble enough to admit the shortcomings of your position, then I don't think you deserve to have any more time wasted on you in this thread. Thank you

MacDaddy01:



Epic fail.


I'm too weak to rebutt

Lol, the lil fella is just out of his depth on your questions and can't even understand them, let alone grasp the import or attempt an answer.

Deep Sight:
Lol, the lil fella is just out of his depth on your questions and can't even understand them, let alone grasp the import or attempt an answer.

No mind the guy, he thinks that arguments begin and end with how many times "epic fail" is shouted.

plaetton:
Yes indeed. We FSM disciples are comedic bunch, aren't we?

If we can wrangle for 10 pages over the Flying Spaghetti Monster and associated cosmological Nomenclatures, then that shows you the beauty and clearity of irreligious thought.
Do you agree?

Most certainly do

Deep Sight: Where you?

mkmyers45: Deep Sight: Where you?

Oga mi. I am here. I don't know how else to answer you: I told you that there has NEVER been any such thing as a perfect vacuum observed ANYWHERE. I also extracted a link and posted the contents here to prove the point to you that perfect vacuums are so far not even possible in existence. Yet you insist, against the bare science, that a perfect vacuum must have existed once somewhere in space. Pray tell, where and when? And who observed such ever?

jayriginal:

Eschewing the second part. This is what I expect my friend to see.

Lets not shift goal posts.

Its particularly sad you cannot yourself see why Plaetton's analogy fails. Within the "beautiful logic" he referred to, I made reference to the known fact that the universe does have a beginning. That was one of the key premises. If you can fathom a beginning for something like time, then you can make an argument. But such an intangible element does not have a beginning. Accordingly, being immaterial, the "logic" canot ever be applied to it: no goal posts have been shifted: all that has been shifted is your determination never to see simple sense in what is written: on account of your mysterious angst against the messenger, you revile the message.

Deep Sight:

Oga mi. I am here. I don't know how else to answer you: I told you that there has NEVER been any such thing as a perfect vacuum observed ANYWHERE. I also extracted a link and posted the contents here to prove the point to you that perfect vacuums are so far not even possible in existence. Yet you insist, against the bare science, that a perfect vacuum must have existed once somewhere in space. Pray tell, where and when? And who observed such ever?

Its amazing that you speak of it so when scientist are close to replicating it in a lab..0kelvin is impossible? No its just not practical now..Perfect Vaccum's are possible just like Ancient Aliens are abi na lie?

On the issue of limiting existence to material things, as well as on the issue of the existence of numbers, I present to Macdaddy and cohorts the following post from one of the best minds ever to grace this forum, Prizm.

I know you fellas will be too lazy to read and absorb it, but try to read it all. It will offer you great illumination.

There are many shades or categories of being/existence ie to say, that when we talk of things existing, there are different senses in which to understand that. There are things which exist because they possess matter; they are physical objects. They have concrete bodies or parts and as such can be seen, touched or felt. This is the most intuitive and common understanding of what it means when one says that a thing exists for they are all around us. So for example, one can say that cars, trees, rocks, water, air, planets, stars exist. This is an understanding that comes from a naturalistic examination of our world.

But why should we say that existence is limited to just the physical things that can be empirically manipulated? Not too many people live their actual daily lives on the presupposition that the only valid things existing are those things which are physical particulars or that have material form. Take some time and think about this point. Indeed the very thing that sets human beings apart as higher-functioning creatures on this earth is the human capacity to understand, process and utilize concepts which are not readily apparent from simple sense data.

In addition to physical objects which we can see, touch/feel, smell, taste or hear we have other reliable understandings of what it means for something to exist. Consider the notion of “Space and Time”. These entities (space and time) are what physical objects are extended into; physical object (matter) obtrudes into space-time; space and time exist even though one cannot literally see, touch/feel, hear, smell or taste them. In other words, you cannot isolate or investigate space and time in some test-tube or laboratory. They are not physically instantiated particulars/objects. Some lower life forms may never rationally comprehend the existence of space or time but their ignorance of that fact does not imply that space and time therefore do not exist.

Also think of the “Equator” or “the center of gravity of the solar system”. The equator has an attribute like a certain length; one can cross the equator but the equator is clearly NOT a physical object even though it exists in time and space. The same goes for the center of gravity of the solar system which is a point moving about in space. It is not a physical/material object either. It is an abstract spatiotemporal object for theoretically the center of gravity of the solar system is a moving point in space that you can momentarily enclose in a tiny container before it passes right through the container as it moves about.

Furthermore, consider this expression “Pete went to a judo match”. This statement makes sense to you, doesn’t it? I assume it does. In other words, if I make another equivalent statement like “Mary went to a dance rehearsal”, someone listening to me will not frown and declare that the statement is meaningless. But if we use a strict naturalistic sense in interpreting what exists, in both sentences the only substances we can empirically isolate are “Pete” in the first sentence and “Mary” in the second sentence. Those two objects have physical form. The rest of the sentence would then have to be described as a meaningless combination of words which do not exist because they can’t be empirically isolated. Would we be rationally justified in taking that stance? The answer is "No". What then do we call “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal”? It would be very absurd, to suggest that “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal” is a property of Pete or Mary in those sentences above. These are simply events.

Events are that which can occur, have occurred or are occurring in a present active sense. They have their own legitimate ontological existence. So for example, let us say that a certain John brushed his teeth this morning. This is an event that has already taken place—which is to say that the event has already occurred or existed. That is quite different from the active and present existing event right now as you read my post on your screen. What if someone comes out then and declares flatly that the event of John “brushing his teeth” cannot exist because the entire event is not a physical object? What if he denies the existence of that event because it lies in the past and is thus no longer capable of being presently witnessed? That is about as absurd as saying that the event “Pete went to a judo match” does not exist or is unreal because from the statement all we can materially grasp at is the physical form of Pete. Once again, an event is another example of existence that is non-material.

Events may involve finite particulars or matter which can be empirically investigated but taken as a whole, events are conceptually non-material. This means that an event as a subject is not composed of or structurally made out of matter. Think about this for a moment. Think about how impossible it will be for any person who purports to be a higher-functioning human being to live his or her life as though all events in the past did not really exist because such a person is committed to the view that only concrete material objects exist; Or how absurd it will be for such a person to doubt the existence of past events because he or she was not around to empirically validate these events. Do you see how such skepticism could lead one to simply assert that the earth is just 4 minutes old but with all appearances of age simply built in? Why? This is because such skepticism over the existence of the non-material (like events) will commit the skeptic to a fundamental disbelief in the rational existence of any past events outside one’s own immediate empirically verifiable personal experience.

Nevertheless we have other philosophical (metaphysical) and equally valid understanding of what it means for something to exist. These would include things like properties (size, color, weight etc), relations (being taller than, being sweeter than, being faster than, being greater or less than, being equal to etc), numbers or number sets (the set of all integers from negative infinity through zero to positive infinity), logic, propositions or mathematical proofs/theorems which are not concrete but abstract. These things have abstract existence unlike the way physical objects have concrete existence. This means that because these things exist in abstract form you could not possibly test them by empirical methods—which is to say that you cannot touch, taste, see, smell or hear them. They exist independent of any physical observer. In other words, these things exist whether or not there are human beings around to apprehend this abstract realm. But of course we do apprehend this abstract realm; and I’ll put it to you that no sane and higher-functioning human being lives his or her life as though the abstract does not exist.

On the issue of numbers, one is correct in a sense when one says that numbers can be used to express some understanding of the physical world. But that naïve view does not invalidate the idea that numbers themselves exist. Otherwise they cannot be employed in any meaningful way by humans who purport to make rational and logical sense of the world. By some of the arguments here, numbers will cease to exist if the only things existing in the world were simple-celled micro-organisms incapable of apprehending the existence of numbers. That idea is simply absurd. Aggregates, a collection of units or sum totals of quantities (or Numbers) exist whether there are sentient or intelligent life forms around to count. It merely redounds to our credit as intelligent humans that we can apprehend a realm of numbers and as such can count things or represent numbers pictorially or visually with numerals.

Just think about this: Did the number 4 simply begin to exist the first time some first intelligent human existing some distant time in the past looked around and counted out 4 objects? As you can see the answer is clearly “No”. There are many other examples to illustrate the point. No one thought up or invented numbers. Numbers are not the product of our creative imaginations or abilities. The correct view is that humans are relatively more advanced life-forms who can comprehend the realm of numbers and as such can invent or think up a visual representation for numbers as numerals and apply them in their day-to-day life.


https://www.nairaland.com/prizm/posts

mkmyers45: Its amazing that you speak of it so when scientist are close to replicating it in a lab..0kelvin is impossible? No its just not practical now..Perfect Vaccum's are possible just like Ancient Aliens are abi na lie?

No problem - just show me one, and I will reverse my position.

Deep Sight:

No problem - just show me one, and I will reverse my position.

Indeed its easier said than done..

mkmyers45: Indeed its easier said than done..

Considering that you turned impracticabilities into "not-yet-done's", I believe the thing you mean is showing one example of a perfect vacuum.

You guys really need to learn up on the science that you shout about.

Deep Sight:
The B.ig bang Theory discloses a beginning for the universe to the extent that it refers to an event that occurred: an expansion.
It does not say that that expansion has been expanding eternally in the past, does it.
Thus the fact that it offers a timeframe for the occurence of the expansion [about 14 billion years ago] - it clearly presupposes a beginning for the universe.

It describes the expansion from a state of "infinite" energy density and doesn't even attempt or presuppose anything before that. Big bang is based on the observation that galaxies are moving away from each other therefore they must have been closer before.It doesn't make any claims about how that singularity began. Also, since dark energy is part of the universe and is said to be accelerating the rate of expansion, why can't the cause of the big bang be an intrinsic part of the singularity(universe) just like dark energy is part of universe?

Deep Sight:
Finally, if you were honest, you at least admit that the arguments I put there are not just "i dont know so God did it" - the God of the gaps. . . you know very very well that I argue for what attributes it would be reasonable to regard a first cause as having and proceed along those lines. If you know this, it is only fair for you to cease to dishonestly pretend that I am in some "Yahweh did it" zone. . . .

You have to know how the singularity happened to be the state it was in before it expanded, then you can start infering about the cause, first or otherwise. What you argue for is a cause for the big bang, which you've termed the "first cause" or god. It is god of the gaps because current knowledge is limited to planck time and you think it's reasonable to bring in a first cause at this particular juncture while. You also view the universe as existing within time instead of time being a part of the universe.

Really, ehn, what point is there to this ten-page argument?