Mr Troll: Sorry mate, people who matter actually understand what i was talking about. You're making yourself look silly.

obviously

Reyginus: Mod obadiah to Alfa:.... And all banned IDs have been released sire. hope you got the emails. all 20 of your IDs have been released

lol.

*looks for obadiah*

Mr Troll: @bold is why i asked you that question. I'm afraid it is you who has to state was you understand by spacetime.

Okay. Space is nothing. Time is the knowing of physical event(s). That is my conception.


Off the top of ma head, mainstream physics hold spacetime continuum to be the context in which the universe exists. An important feature of spacetime is that it started with the Big Bang and it expands. Spacetime was suggested by Einstein in his theories of relativity, the general one I surmise, in order to account for different time frames for different regions of space. Of course, I might be wrong but I this is how I think most scientsists hold spacetime.

FOLYKAZE:

onyin ara

Nothing ≠ everything. If A ≠ B, then (X = A) ≠ (X = B).
Also, atheism claims that no (real) thing is god, not that god and nothingness are the same thing. Atheism doesn't define god as nothing; it defines god as a thing that isn't real (or, at least, a thing that the atheist does not believe is real).

Quote from Carl Sagan:
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others — for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein — considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
But Sagan continued elsewhere, "But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."




No.... Do you see anything related to this in my post? (nairaland atheist are just throwing straw with purpose of winning argument, you lost on me).

I write my opinion doesn't matter you agree or belief it or not......go figure things out there

Tbh, I don't see what the fuss is about. You're beginning to behave like Chibuebem, chasing your own tail and expecting others to join in. Is the term 'nairaland atheist' supposed to be an insult or derogatory?



Enjoy your search for knowledge, bro.

plaetton:

I understand where you're coming from ,and I agree with you 100%`
It is actually illogical to say that god is everything, and then say that god is something.
It is hard for many to grasp that if god is the total sum of all, then god, as a separate entity that many assume him to be, cannot exist.
This is why I am a pantheist atheist.

For the same reason, I laugh when people say that there is a one and only god, then also turn around to say " God is a mighty God", God is a loving God, etc.

Similarly, telling someone that god loves them is also silly, if we agree that god must, as a matter of law, either love all his creation or hate all his creations.

Actually, IMO, what I find quite ludicrous is the idea that all religions refer to the same God but by different names i.e Allah is Yahweh is Olodumare is Chineke... Everyone will make heaven then.

aManFromMars:

Tbh, I don't see what the fuss is about. You're beginning to behave like Chibuebem, chasing your own tail and expecting others to join in. Is the term 'nairaland atheist' supposed to be an insult or derogatory?



Enjoy your search for knowledge, bro.

The fawktard is trying to copy me


I was chastising nairaland atheists due to their limp efforts here.....Unfortunately, Foolykaze thought that there is a "nairaland atheism". What he didnt understand was that I was only referring to geography- Nigerian atheists- atheists from Nigeria.

Logicboy03:


The fawktard is trying to copy me


I was chastising nairaland atheists due to their limp efforts here.....Unfortunately, Foolykaze thought that there is a "nairaland atheism". What he didnt understand was that I was only referring to geography- Nigerian atheists- atheists from Nigeria.

See this guy....

Not really about you. Though you used the term but not really about you.

No sermon today?

Chibuebem: yep. When Jesus finally comes to enforce his rule and judge nations, I can bet they'll convince humans it's an extra_terrestrial attack. LoL some atheists already believe in extra terrestrials anyway. With no shred of evidence. Evolution too. Yet they find it hard to believe in God and intelligent design. Smh.

only the brainwashed use belief as evidence! traces of extra terrestrial can be found almost everywhere on planet earth. almost every culture in the world has a story of gods(aliens) that came from the sky in the remote past. even in your so called word of god(bible) Genesis 6:1-4 read down...
it stated clearly that aliens were here in those days.
religion is just a tool to control the masses.

aManFromMars:

Tbh, I don't see what the fuss is about. You're beginning to behave like Chibuebem, chasing your own tail and expecting others to join in. Is the term 'nairaland atheist' supposed to be an insult or derogatory?



Enjoy your search for knowledge, bro.

Nothing like insult here Oga chukwu.

Less you forget....ima self made nig.ga...ask ricky.

Cheers bro

991:

only the brainwashed use belief as evidence! traces of extra terrestrial can be found almost everywhere on planet earth. almost every culture in the world has a story of gods(aliens) that came from the sky in the remote past. even in your so called word of god(bible) Genesis 6:1-4 read down...
it stated clearly that aliens were here in those days.
religion is just a tool to control the masses.

I agree with your last phrase.

And you have also stated that you're a brainwashed human being.

Chibuebem: I'm lol and smh at the same time. The gravity and meaning of your comment was lost on yourself.

I even opened a thread about it.

You're still right in a way my friend. I reason on the context of God's word, and I have success in life. Joshua 1:8

lol @ the bold, and you think those who dont reason on the context of bible have no success abi? sometimes people's way of thinking is funny!
what do you say about impoverished millions all over the world who also believe and reason on the context of the word of god??

*Kails*:


lol.

*looks for obadiah*

smdh. this aint got nothing to do with me. like my man shaggy said 'it wasnt me' lol

on a side-note, to all the atheists today is sunday and many threads from religion would make frontpage. i see yall aint stepped yall game up yet. i am looking for good threads from yall to push forward but i have not found a single one yet smdh

991:

lol @ the bold, and you think those who dont reason on the context of bible have no success abi? sometimes people's way of thinking is funny!
what do you say about impoverished millions all over the world who also believe and reason on the context of the word of god??

I say they are NOT believing and reasoning on the context of the word of God. God is not a liar.

Chibuebem: I agree with your last phrase.

And you have also stated that you're a brainwashed human being.

you won't be surprised if i tell you i know the bible more than you do, would you?
you won't be surprised that a huge percentage of atheist were ex-christians,
don't misinterpret my use of biblical verse, we (atheists) study to learn!

Chibuebem: I say they are NOT believing and reasoning on the context of the word of God. God is not a liar.

my friend, you still have a very long way to go, though the cobwebs of religion is not that easy to clear, especially in this part of the world.

plaetton:
Yes na. Non-existent within universe.

Lololol. I don't know how the fact that since He is not resident in the universe, the probability of His existence is zero. I guess this is where you are driving at.
Now let's draw from a simple analogy. Assuming I am in my room playing some hot music. Every other person not within my environment cannot here the sound of the music. Don't you think it will be highly illogical to conclude that since you cannot hear the sound from the outside, then it doesn't exist.
From where you are coming from, I think you have a problem with the interaction of things outside and the ones inside. Isn't that so?

Reyginus I was hoping you'll respond to my reply to you.

That God gave us this small brain to think...is not for foolish analysis. I know Atheists keep saying this and that and indirectly expecting God to respond. The silence even makes you guys more foolish, are'nt you guys tired of repeating this? If I am an Atheist, I could have stopped talking about this long time ago. Analysing God, where he is or when is a major waste of time. Let us channel this brain and intelligence to something more productive on the small time we have here.

FOLYKAZE:

I respect your opinion but can you explain why you said panentheism is illogical?

Like I told AmanFromMars, panentheism subscribes to the existence of a premordial and consequent poles as the changing and unchanging parts of God. That His body is the universe.
My problem with this is that, if God has the universe as His body, it only suggests, and like panentheism holds, that His body is always in the process of becoming. Never is, always trying to become perfect.
A God which never is, always becoming, inaddition to having a finite portion is not worthy to be called God. That even suggest that some time in the future His body will cease to exist or become transformed. A God that experiences transformation is not worthy to be regarded as such.
The unchanging pole is timeless, the changing pole operates within time. This also suggests a conflict within this so-called God.
And please help with this question. Where was the consequent pole, that is, the potential pole of this God before he created the universe?

Reyginus: Lololol. I don't know how the fact that since He is not resident in the universe, the probability of His existence is zero. I guess this is where you are driving at.
Now let's draw from a simple analogy. Assuming I am in my room playing some hot music. Every other person not within my environment cannot here the sound of the music. Don't you think it will be highly illogical to conclude that since you cannot hear the sound from the outside, then it doesn't exist.
From where you are coming from, I think you have a problem with the interaction of things outside and the ones inside. Isn't that so?

lol @ how ridiculous the bold is, and you have been in ur room playing hot music all ur life time, from year to year. even when people outside are strongly doubting there is even a room let alone anyone playing any music because they can't hear any sound of ur assumed hot music, you are still unable to show up out side 'irrespective of your claims that those outside are ur beloved children whom you created in ur image & likeness'... in fact, anyone who wants to believe you are in side the room should go and read ur book (bible) ??
my friend, you simply do not exist!!

Uyi Iredia: I should treat your response in detail



I don't.



God is the space. Location is an observed part of space an object exists in and as such location requires space not vice-versa.

If 'God is the space', then God, or substituted as space, then He must be observing some amount of change. Once He partakes in change then He didn't create the universe, but a product of it. You see, He cannot be space and still IS. He will ever be in a process of BECOMING. He must be expanding too.
Your definition of God here is more like any entity still discovering his potentials. He will never discover it but always on the verge of discovering it. And somehow, he will require the conditions at hand to dictate to him what way to go. And at the end of the whole thing he will experience the second law of thermodynamics too. Mehn! This can't be God.

Uyi Iredia:
It isn't. Anything that exists requires space to exist in. As such I find talk of no space to be silly. Without space all you'll have is space since the space you assume will need space to exist in: I also think the idea of space expanding absurd for the simple reasin that it presumes space to be physical and space is required for expansion.

Now we have a problem. This is an observed scientific deduction you are trying to go against. Before I respond to this I will like to know if you hold the concept of an expanding universe a lie. I think that will solve the problem. I also hope you know the consequences.

Uyi Iredia:
Space is eternal and fundamental to existence. It is evident to anyone that absolutely all things occupy (or exist in) space.

But space cannot be eternal because it has not always existed. Maybe we need to introduce our friend the Big Bang Theory here.

Uyi Iredia:
No, it is not IN space. It is space and I hold that space is eternal. You can't apply time to space for the simple reason that space is infinite. You can't say this is where space starts or ends. You start or end IN space.

It can only be eternal if it never began to exist. I think we really need the big ba.ng now.

Uyi Iredia: And ask questions if any.

Can God change?

Uyi Iredia: Reyginus I was hoping you'll respond to my reply to you.

Turn by turn, bro.

991:

lol @ how ridiculous the bold is, and you have been in ur room playing hot music all ur life time, from year to year. even when people outside are strongly doubting there is even a room let alone anyone playing any music because they can't hear any sound of ur assumed hot music, you are still unable to show up out side 'irrespective of your claims that those outside are ur beloved children whom you created in ur image & likeness'... in fact, anyone who wants to believe you are in side the room should go and read ur book (bible) ??
my friend, you simply do not exist!!

You are not getting the point. Plaetton hinged his non-existence with His absence in our inside. His point was that as long as something is not inside it cannot really be if it is outside.
This is only trying to tell him how insufficient his reasons were. I hope you get it this time.

Reyginus: If 'God is the space', then God, or substituted as space, then He must be observing some amount of change.

Space is immutable.

Reyginus: Once He partakes in change then He didn't create the universe, but a product of it.

Why ?

Reyginus: You see, He cannot be space and still IS.

I disagree. I hold space to be nothing and as such must exist. Ergo, space is.

Reyginus: He will ever be in a process of BECOMING. He must be expanding too.

Space doesn't expand, saying such is absurd on the level of square circles: the reason, as I've earlier said, is elementary, only matter is seen to expand in space not space, also expansion presumes space to expand in, to say space expands (or stretches) is to say space is to assume IMPLICITLY that space is both immaterial and material.

Reyginus: Your definition of God here is more like any entity still discovering his potentials. He will never discover it but always on the verge of discovering it. And somehow, he will require the conditions at hand to dictate to him what way to go. And at the end of the whole thing he will experience the second law of thermodynamics too. Mehn! This can't be God.

Not discovering, revealing His potentials, potentials He is fully aware of. Laws of Nature don't apply to space. To be clear, I mean the space the universe exists in, and by space I mean nothing.

Reyginus: Now we have a problem. This is an observed scientific deduction you are trying to go against. Before I respond to this I will like to know if you hold the concept of an expanding universe a lie. I think that will solve the problem. I also hope you know the consequences.

Sometimes space is used to mean universe. But by space I mean nothing, the nothingness the physical universe subsists in. I DON'T hold the expansion of the universe to be false, the proposition is sensible. What I said is absurd is saying space (which the universe is in) expands.

Reyginus: But space cannot be eternal because it has not always existed. Maybe we need to introduce our friend the Big Bang Theory here.

It has. The Big Bang requires space for expansion from its primeval state to occur in. To presume such made the space, which the Big Bang MUST have occurred in is to be silly.

Reyginus: It can only be eternal if it never began to exist. I think we really need the big ba.ng now.
Can God change?

My consciousness and human consciousness in general is more important than any Big Bang Theory, and yes, space never began to exist, it always exists.

As space, God is immutable (unchangeable). As the physical world, God is mutable. I must warn though, my stance involves contradictions and is certainly weird at some point. That doesn't bother me.

FOLYKAZE:

See this guy....

Not really about you. Though you used the term but not really about you.

No sermon today?

Sermon dey come

Uyi Iredia:

Space is immutable.

We cannot say that anything which is still expanding is not immutable. I don't think that will be logically correct.
It can only be so if our universe is not experiencing some change, but it is experiencing some change. Or maybe you can explain to me how an expansion in size does not equate to a change. That's even one out of so many. Is our universe not expanding?

Uyi Iredia:
Why ?

Because something must be responsible for the change. And it is not Him. Then He is not the first cause. The first cause cannot be caused to change.

Uyi Iredia:
I disagree. I hold space to be nothing and as such must exist. Ergo, space is.

This is where you get it wrong. Space actually in the real sense doesn't exist. It is a construct we use to apply to any region occupied by matter and energy. We cannot then say that space as nothing must exist. If we can find a region with no presence of matter or energy then we have found a void and not necessarily nothing as you'd have it to mean.

Uyi Iredia:
Space doesn't expand, saying such is absurd on the level of square circles: the reason, as I've earlier said, is elementary, only matter is seen to expand in space not space, also expansion presumes space to expand in, to say space expands (or stretches) is to say space is to assume IMPLICITLY that space is both immaterial and material.

Again, space is a term that denotes the presence of matter or energy. So what happens when there is a multiplication of matter and energy? Surely, we can then say that our space has expanded. If a person indulges in physical exercises like muscle building. With time we tend to notice an enlargement of the body part exercised. When a person now says that the body of the fellow who engaged in the exercise has enlarged, do we now counter it by saying that bodies do not enlarge, muscles do, even when we've come to identify the word 'enlarge' as an increase in the size of something? Certainly, we would be playing a mischievious game if we answer in the affirmative.

Uyi Iredia:
Not discovering, revealing His potentials, potentials He is fully aware of. Laws of Nature don't apply to space. To be clear, I mean the space the universe exists in, and by space I mean nothing.

Now, you are getting it twisted. The universe cannot exist in space. You are neglecting that you've already concluded, which I also agree to, that space doesn't exist. I begin to wonder how our universe will exist in a term we constructed to define a portion of it. It is like saying that letters and words are a must for anything describable to exist.
Your idea of nothing here fails, the right thing to say would have been void. Nothing as you use it, implies an empty space. But an empty space is not a void.

Uyi Iredia:
Sometimes space is used to mean universe. But by space I mean nothing, the nothingness the physical universe subsists in. I DON'T hold the expansion of the universe to be false, the proposition is sensible. What I said is absurd is saying space (which the universe is in) expands.

The physical universe doesn't subsist in any nothing but in a void. If you do not hold the expansion to be false, it then suggests that you hold God as space, which we use to term a region of matter/energy, is also expanding and changing. If He changing, something must be responsible for the change. If He is responsible, then He is not perfect and cannot be God. A God in the process of creating himself is not God.

Uyi Iredia:
It has. The Big Bang requires space for expansion from its primeval state to occur in. To presume such made the space, which the Big Bang MUST have occurred in is to be silly.

And what if I tell you that the singularity which immersed the energy that assumed the first trace of space was caused. You are making the mistake of treating it like it was the beginning itself.

Uyi Iredia:
My consciousness and human consciousness in general is more important than any Big Bang Theory, and yes, space never began to exist, it always exists.

As space, God is immutable (unchangeable). As the physical world, God is mutable. I must warn though, my stance involves contradictions and is certainly weird at some point. That doesn't bother me.

This is more like the panentheism's idea of God as having two poles. You see whether God as space or as the physical world(I wonder the difference) experiences change, then He is not God but trying be. He is always becoming, never is. You are even bent on introducing a new concept whose line you didn't follow initially. You are no longer saying that He is not only the space, but also the universe. This is a new level of contradiction you are heading to. Like saying in the denotative sense that, I am my hand and not my body and also differently, that I am my entire body and not my hand.

And the flaw reveals itself much more.

Reyginus: We cannot say that anything which is still expanding is not immutable. I don't think that will be logically correct.
It can only be so if our universe is not experiencing some change, but it is experiencing some change. Or maybe you can explain to me how an expansion in size does not equate to a change. That's even one out of so many. Is our universe not expanding?

The universe changes. Not space.

Reyginus: Because something must be responsible for the change. And it is not Him. Then He is not the first cause. The first cause cannot be caused to change.

It can change of its own accord and so would the effect.

Reyginus: This is where you get it wrong. Space actually in the real sense doesn't exist. It is a construct we use to apply to any region occupied by matter and energy. We cannot then say that space as nothing must exist. If we can find a region with no presence of matter or energy then we have found a void and not necessarily nothing as you'd have it to mean.

No. You get it wrong. Your view of space draws from Kant (who thought it a conceptual framework) and Leibniz (who thought it to be all regions between objects). Mine is similar to Newton's. With or without matter space exists. Or as Newton says it (absolute space as he calls it) exists without regard to anything external (pie physical bodies and energy). Your talk of void is needless, the term space suffices. Now if you grant that matter OCCUPIES a region you accede to my concept of space ipso facto. Because it is a basic property of all matter that they OCCUPY a region in space.
This space is immaterial or nothing. To state otherwise is silly.

Reyginus: Again, space is a term that denotes the presence of matter or energy. So what happens when there is a multiplication of matter and energy? Surely, we can then say that our space has expanded. If a person indulges in physical exercises like muscle building. With time we tend to notice an enlargement of the body part exercised. When a person now says that the body of the fellow who engaged in the exercise has enlarged, do we now counter it by saying that bodies do not enlarge, muscles do, even when we've come to identify the word 'enlarge' as an increase in the size of something? Certainly, we would be playing a mischievious game if we answer in the affirmative.

No. Space isn't matter or energy. I assert it is nothing. Matter must occupy a region. This region is an defined aspect of space a material (chair, quark, sun etc) exists in as determined by its dimensions, surface area and volume. So whilst I will not be foolish to differ that matter expands, I won't accept your premise that space is matter or energy, or that it given my premise.

Reyginus: Now, you are getting it twisted. The universe cannot exist in space. You are neglecting that you've already concluded, which I also agree to, that space doesn't exist. I begin to wonder how our universe will exist in a term we constructed to define a portion of it. It is like saying that letters and words are a must for anything describable to exist.
Your idea of nothing here fails, the right thing to say would have been void. Nothing as you use it, implies an empty space. But an empty space is not a void

What nonsense ? The universe cannot exist in space. So what does it exist in ? If you say nothing, note my stance is presumed. You walk in space, you see sun is space, you see trees in space etc. On the contrary, I hold space really exists as the nothingness the universe is in. Now coming from what you say about my conception of space being a void note this: I hold empty space and void the same
. You say void is without matter or energy and presumably empty space has both. But you fail woefully at noting that you refer to the same nothingness. The only difference is one now contains matter & energy. Note, it is a context in which physical things MUST exist. Remove the physical things and it still remains.

Reyginus: The physical universe doesn't subsist in any nothing but in a void. If you do not hold the expansion to be false, it then suggests that you hold God as space, which we use to term a region of matter/energy, is also expanding and changing. If He changing, something must be responsible for the change. If He is responsible, then He is not perfect and cannot be God. A God in the process of creating himself is not God.

Now you are confused over definitions. Space is defined in Wikipedia as the three-dimensional extent the universe is in. Then you say the universe exists in a void, before you said, the void has no matter and energy, this is illogical. Now your talk of space being a region I know and respect but I'm talking of space in its totality. It is infinite. I don't use the term void, space is also widely known to be nothing amongst other meanings.

And what if I tell you that the singularity which immersed the energy that assumed the first trace of space was caused. You are making the mistake of treating it like it was the beginning itself.

Reyginus: This is more like the panentheism's idea of God as having two poles.

Panendeism to be precise. There are lots of terms BTW. I prefer to keep things simple, I'm deist, soon to be atheist.

Reyginus: You see whether God as space or as the physical world(I wonder the difference) experiences change, then He is not God but trying be.

He is both. As God perfect, immutable and infinite. In the universe, He is fulfilling what He wills. It's not so much as God trying to be but God trying (as God).

Reyginus: He is always becoming, never is.

Agreed, the contradiction(s) made manifest in the universe. God pouring out of his infinite knowledge ans manifesting it in a physical reality, where people just reveal aspects continually, but never reaching a state of omniscience, God being the limit. Chew on this a bit.

Reyginus: You are even bent on introducing a new concept whose line you didn't follow initially. You are no longer saying that He is not only the space, but also the universe.

Goos, Goos, you catch on quickly.

Reyginus: This is a new level of contradiction you are heading to.

Yes. Over time, I realize that despite man's sincerest efforts contradiction exist. In fact, I now think contradictions necessary and without it, reality would be a mess. I shall ramble a bit here.

The ancients did think deep and we see this in things like Zeno's paradox or the identity problem. As I recall the latter, one asked whether a ship dismantled and rebuilt in another fashion from the same pieces of wood was identical.

Think of my poser to wiegraf and thehomer that 1+1=2 violated the law of identity. In fact, ask why it is so logical to assume 1+1 equates to (or is the same as) 2 so much so that when one claims otherwise one is deemed silly. And yet 1+1 is nothing but . . . 1+1. 2 is different from 1+1.


Or the confutation of calling yourself the same person as a little child, a teen and an adult. In fact, when you die you would be called the same person even if, like say Hitler, you are but some long unknown pile of ash. Different body, same person. Very consistent !

It is not a question of whether or not you contradict yourself. You must, even God does. It is a question of how you contradict yourself and what you accept as a contradiction or not.

Reyginus: Like saying in the denotative sense that, I am my hand and not my body and also differently, that I am my entire body and not my hand.

I see. But you said it. The contradiction exists, ain't it ?

obadiah777: smdh. this aint got nothing to do with me. like my man shaggy said 'it wasnt me' lol

on a side-note, to all the atheists today is sunday and many threads from religion would make frontpage. i see yall aint stepped yall game up yet. i am looking for good threads from yall to push forward but i have not found a single one yet smdh

Ehen youre totally innocent
Lol@ you still challenging cyber athiests. they could careless about threads being on FP, they are too busy arguing to argue.

*Kails*:


Ehen youre totally innocent
Lol@ you still challenging cyber athiests. they could careless about threads being on FP, they are too busy arguing to argue.

chasing their tail, if i may

Reyginus: You are not getting the point. Plaetton hinged his non-existence with His absence in our inside. His point was that as long as something is not inside it cannot really be if it is outside.
This is only trying to tell him how insufficient his reasons were. I hope you get it this time.

I think you understood where I was coming , and just pretending not to.

Anything not contained within the universe does not exist in the universe.
That is soooo simple and so commonsensical.

For example Reyginus,
Can you please some of the elements that you know exists, but are not found in the universe?

Uyi Iredia: And the flaw reveals itself much more.



The universe changes. Not space.

Lol. And space is not a part of the universe? A principal thing you should observe is, when we say the universe is expanding, in what respect does it fall. Simply, we can only know it is expanding when there is an increase in the space. Now tell me, how do we know that the universe is expanding?

Uyi Iredia:
It can change of its own accord and so would the effect.

Let me make something clear here. When entities evolve, the aim is usually to become better. To perform better than they were. So, once God evolves it will only entail that He is still trying to be perfect. He is being perfected. This means God is incomplete and also not self-sufficient, He is not responsible for His Evolution and thus there must be something greater than Him. Can God experience evolution and still be God?

Uyi Iredia:
No. You get it wrong. Your view of space draws from Kant (who thought it a conceptual framework) and Leibniz (who thought it to be all regions between objects). Mine is similar to Newton's. With or without matter space exists. Or as Newton says it (absolute space as he calls it) exists without regard to anything external (pie physical bodies and energy). Your talk of void is needless, the term space suffices. Now if you grant that matter OCCUPIES a region you accede to my concept of space ipso facto. Because it is a basic property of all matter that they OCCUPY a region in space.
This space is immaterial or nothing. To state otherwise is silly.

I do not subcribe to Kant or Liebniz, neither do I think that Newton should be taken seriously when considering space. Where then do we now place Albert Einstein whose theory of relativity summarizes the concept of space-time? Newton is no authority here. According to Einsteins Relativity, which has been proven to be true, mass, space and time are connected. Space is not nothing as you will have it to mean but a construct to represent regions dominated by energy. It is not nothing as you describe nothing.

Uyi Iredia:
No. Space isn't matter or energy. I assert it is nothing. Matter must occupy a region. This region is an defined aspect of space a material (chair, quark, sun etc) exists in as determined by its dimensions, surface area and volume. So whilst I will not be foolish to differ that matter expands, I won't accept your premise that space is matter or energy, or that it given my premise.

I didn't say that space is matter or energy, but a construct to define any region they occupy. So, it is now a question of commonsense. If we agree that matter expands, we will have no option but also to agree that the region it is occupying must also be expanding. It is just commonsense to see so.

Uyi Iredia:
What nonsense ? The universe cannot exist in space. So what does it exist in ? If you say nothing, note my stance is presumed. You walk in space, you see sun is space, you see trees in space etc. On the contrary, I hold space really exists as the nothingness the universe is in. Now coming from what you say about my conception of space being a void note this: I hold empty space and void the same
. You say void is without matter or energy and presumably empty space has both. But you fail woefully at noting that you refer to the same nothingness. The only difference is one now contains matter & energy. Note, it is a context in which physical things MUST exist. Remove the physical things and it still remains.

I still repeat, the universe does not exist in space. Space exists because something exist. It cannot exist if there is a void. And frankly speaking, I think we need a link on the big bang and also Einstein's theory of General and Special Relativity. It will help solve so many difficiences here.

Uyi Iredia:
Now you are confused over definitions. Space is defined in Wikipedia as the three-dimensional extent the universe is in. Then you say the universe exists in a void, before you said, the void has no matter and energy, this is illogical. Now your talk of space being a region I know and respect but I'm talking of space in its totality. It is infinite. I don't use the term void, space is also widely known to be nothing amongst other meanings.

You see, anyhow you want to turn it, you end showing that space cannot exist where there is no energy. In the beginning of everything, our singularity was never built from a space but matter within it was creating space, so how then will we now say that the universe is sitting on space. I don't know if you are getting me. Let me cut it down. Our universe began to exist when clumps of bodies incorporated nto a single element. At that instant, nothing besides this singularity was existing. I mean nothing. And nothing was happening too. Time was equal to zero. But as moments passed by, there was increase in the singularity, thus the creation of space and change began, beginning time. So, if space existed as a product of the expansion of the singularity, which was the universe, it cannot then be where the universe is expanding to.

Uyi Iredia:
Panendeism to be precise. There are lots of terms BTW. I prefer to keep things simple, I'm deist, soon to be atheist.

Is there such a thing?

Uyi Iredia:
He is both. As God perfect, immutable and infinite. In the universe, He is fulfilling what He wills. It's not so much as God trying to be but God trying (as God).

Please let's be sincere here. How can you say that something which is always in the process of becoming is unchanging and perfect? Then of what use do things evolve if not to become better.

Uyi Iredia:
Agreed, the contradiction(s) made manifest in the universe. God pouring out of his infinite knowledge ans manifesting it in a physical reality, where people just reveal aspects continually, but never reaching a state of omniscience, God being the limit. Chew on this a bit.

No. This is like the skin of an elephant, too hard to chew and not really of great taste. If you checked, you would have seen that manifestation and change are two different things. When a thing manifests, it exercises its essence but when a thing changes, it will no longer manifest the way it has always done. I can pour or teach what I am conversant with, it doesn't who I am. But when I change, I am no longer who I am. God is the 'I am who I am'.

Uyi Iredia:
Goos, Goos, you catch on quickly.

Good for you.

Uyi Iredia:
Yes. Over time, I realize that despite man's sincerest efforts contradiction exist. :PIn fact, I now think contradictions necessary and without it, reality would be a mess. I shall ramble a bit here.

I think you will end up nailing yourself. Can one really explain that the concept he is trying to describe is contradicting, using the principle of non-contradiction? As in, can you really tell with logic that what you are trying to explain is the illogical but arrived at through logic?

Uyi Iredia:
The ancients did think deep and we see this in things like Zeno's paradox or the identity problem. As I recall the latter, one asked whether a ship dismantled and rebuilt in another fashion from the same pieces of wood was identical.

I know little of Zeno. Please, tell me more about his ship.

Uyi Iredia:
Think of my poser to wiegraf and thehomer that 1+1=2 violated the law of identity. In fact, ask why it is so logical to assume 1+1 equates to (or is the same as) 2 so much so that when one claims otherwise one is deemed silly. And yet 1+1 is nothing but . . . 1+1. 2 is different from 1+1.

I no little of identity too.

Uyi Iredia:
Or the confutation of calling yourself the same person as a little child, a teen and an adult. In fact, when you die you would be called the same person even if, like say Hitler, you are but some long unknown pile of ash. Different body, same person. Very consistent !

You stretch it too much here. One thing is certain in the three stages. You are a person. But talk of the same person, it doesn't matter what the people say, the truth is that you are not. As a child, your voice was very tiny and soft, so was your skin too, you were lacking in the secondary sexual characters, and you mental capacity was still developing.
As a teenager, your voice becomes thicker, you develop anatomically, your skin becomes less soft, and you capacity for mental exercises develop.
As an adult, your anatomy move from better to good. You becoming more responsible for catering of so many needs. Not only do all this happen, socially, ethically and psychologically we experience some change.
Do you mean to tell me that these are one and the same? Do you call a child s man, or a man a child if they are the same thing?

Uyi Iredia:
It is not a question of whether or not you contradict yourself. You must, even God does. It is a question of how you contradict yourself and what you accept as a contradiction or not.

Lol. How can a God which you hold to be perfect contradict himself? Haba! Contradiction is an evidence of imperfection. Imperfection is not perfection.

Uyi Iredia:
I see. But you said it. The contradiction exists, ain't it ?

Lol. This doesn't answer the question: ' I am my hand and not my body and also differently, that I am my entire body and not my hand'. . It smartly shifts it.

plaetton:

I think you understood where I was coming , and just pretending not to.

Anything not contained within the universe does not exist in the universe.
That is soooo simple and so commonsensical.

For example Reyginus,
Can you please some of the elements that you know exists, but are not found in the universe?

Lol. It is simple. I know the universe has an outer layer which is not in the universe.