Ok. Fair point. Now, lets not digress too far and get back to the original topic.

Deep sight are you still there?

@ pastor aio, the "1" in the equation is not necessarily God, just as the resultant 1 is not necessarily the universe. The equation is really metaphorical: to show that somethingness must be involved in the coming to be of somethingness.

As regards the question of intelligence - would you really compare the water in your kitchen sink to the cosmos? The cosmos is staggering in its beauty, tangents, movements, regeneration and the endless worlds it contains. Our earth, a mere pin prick in the universe, is similarly structured. The composite picture that emerges requires billions of perfectly interlocking relationships to form the resultant world.

I am certain you have seen the image of the eaarth as taken from the moon. Aside from the complex interlocking relationships that support its existence, it is also a spectacular work of art. I would suggest that it is a more stupendous body than water in your kitchen sink.

Is it really possible or logical that we can deny the existence of the element of intelligence, and also a sense of beauty? These elements are perforce attributes of the something that i talked about.

@ tudor, a proper understanding of the equations i set out earlier rules out your suggestion that the universe is itself the cause and intelligence. The basic law of cause and effect demonstrates this.

toneyb:

This is ridiculous and a complete BS. Christians believe in a logical god, and only excuse him from logic in specific instances to allow themselves to hold conflicting ideas at the same time thats all to this sorry of an excuse.  The claim that "God is not bound by our human logic" comes up every so often. The claim that god somehow supersedes logic is usually invoked as a defense for the so-called "paradoxes of christianity for example" Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful who acts like a father figure to all christians as a source of protection but still allows christians to suffer unnecessarily while doing nothing no protect or help them from their sufferings. God is one, yet God is three different entities. God planned everything out from the beginning, yet everyone has free will, and therefore it's your fault if you suffer or if natural disasters comes and kill people off for no reason at all. The Bible has plenary inspiration, yet it was written by human authors who wrote from their own limited perspective. And on and on.

The very ridiculous claim that the christian god transcends our understanding of deduction is thrown out as a conversation-ending bald assertion ONLY when contradictory doctrines come into conflict. It essentially says "I'm right so shut up." or "I don't have to play by your rules at all." The idea that God is not bound by logic is frequently stated more subtly like "Well, it's just a mystery" or "Who are YOU to question God?"  Christians come up with these silly excuses ONLY when they have their backs against the wall and try to explain away or dance around some christian claims that do not make sense at all or can not stand up to basic scrutiny other wise LOGIC is the ONLY thing christians use when talking about their god and what he wants from people, when they are faced with ridiculous assertions of the christian faith that can not be supported at all they come up with the "god's ways are not human ways" forgetting that the same god was written to have said that "come let us REASON TOGETHER" at some point in the bible. So how can you reason together with an entity who you can never understand by logic since reasoning involves logic alone?

I do not know of christians who are willing to follow the claim that their god is not bound by logic to its "logical" conclusion: If God is not bound by logic, then all of the rules of deduction go out the window. One of the most basic rules of logic is the law of non-contradiction, that A != ~A. If you throw that idea out the window, you have basically destroyed the idea of Truth, and  you can say anything that you want to say about god. If  your god is not bound by logic, then you can say that your god both exists, and does not exist at the same time. You can say, without blinking, that your god is sublimely good, yet your god is also the most evil being that ever has existed. If you say your god is not bound by logic, then what's to stop you from saying that Jesus was both god and not god, that Christianity is both true and a lie?

I don't know what these theists you were listening to meant to say but sometimes, language can be a barrier to effective communication.

The theist does not believe in an irrational or non-rational God. Therefore if you heard a theist say that "God is not bound by logic", I'll agree with you that in a given understanding of that expression, one should have no business concerning oneself with a divine that is posited to be illogical, irrational or perhaps non-rational.  I think that is at best, a poor choice of words. Why indeed should one bother with some entity which is alleged to be nonsensical?

But what if this is not what the theist meant by that statement? The mainstream position of theists on God is that God is an unembodied mind (incorporeal), omniscient, transcends the bounds of space of time and that he does not act in ways that contradict his very own nature. On that view, God is not deemed irrational or as "not bound by logic", but indeed God is posited as the embodiment of the loftiest and highest logic. As the very embodiment of superlative logic, he cannot act in ways that contradict his very own logical nature and thus does not flout the Laws of Logic (the law of non-contradiction in your example).

So the theist you were talking to probably meant to say that "God transcends human logic" - not that God is illogical or antithetical to reason or some other ill-conceived caricature. The theist probably wanted to express the infinitesimal scope of human reasoning or mentation when compared to God's. Like I said elsewhere, theists are not philosophical Verificationists; they can and do appeal to other inferences that are not strictly naturalistic or empirical.

Deep Sight:

Have you considered exploring with your opponents what philosophical persuasion underlies their positions? I find it interesting for example that you would want to discuss with strict Verificationists or naturalists on a subject matter that a) they may have a poor conception of or b) choose not to accept.

How do you think that an atheist who believes God does not exist on the grounds that God is not empirically testable will agree with your insistence on the perfectly rational metaphysical existence of ethical values, moral values, or aesthetic values - none of which is empirically verifiable? They cannot live their lives on the bald assumption that there is no ontological existence of these abstract realms but if you press the matter, a great many will flatly deny the existence of such. It helps to know what philosophy undergirds some of your opponent's pronouncements so as to know what manner of opposition you have.

There are those who want an honest exchange of information and there are those who are atheists because it is the fashionable thing on internet fora and universities.

Prizm:

How do you think that an atheist who believes God does not exist on the grounds that God is not empirically testable will agree with your insistence on the perfectly rational metaphysical existence of ethical values, moral values, or aesthetic values - none of which is empirically verifiable?

I thought those were products of society?. . .     

I don't understand what u mean

Krayola2:

I thought those were products of society?. . .     

I don't understand what u mean

Thanks for asking a question when you didn't understand a comment instead of posting some ridiculous red herring disguised to look like some sensible rebuttal.

Let me explain it in very simple terms.

Have you ever run into people who say something like "If something is not immediately evident to my five senses, it is not real and should not be believed"? or "The only reality I can accept is that reality that is  empirically observable" or something like "Reality is simply something that is physical and can be directly apprehended by the 5 sense organs" or something like "If you cannot know or prove something with your 5 senses then that thing is just meaningless and has no truth value"?

My point is that people who make such claims do not live their lives as though they actually believed the full import of that statement. For there are a vast number of situations where human beings act and behave on presuppositions and assumptions that we are very rational to believe but which are not empirically testable. How for example do such people deal with ethical truths, aesthetic truths, or moral truths? As a matter of fact, even science itself (which they'd always want to fall back on ) works on lots of assumptions that have not been explicitly observed or proven. Such people who adopt these positions (Verificationists) cannot function much in society for their attitude is inimical to science itself and commonsense. On the whole, this philosophical Verificationism is self-referentially incoherent for it doesn't take much to figure out that any statement of Verificationist principles i[b]s by its very nature incapable of being empirically observed.[/b]

Prizm:


Have you ever run into people who say something like "If something is not immediately evident to my five senses, it is not real and should not be believed"? or "The only reality I can accept is that reality that is  empirically observable" or something like "Reality is simply something that is physical and can be directly apprehended by the 5 sense organs" or something like "If you cannot know or prove something with your 5 senses then that thing is just meaningless and has no truth value"?

My point is that people who make such claims do not live their lives as though they actually believed the full import of that statement. For there are a vast number of situations where human beings act and behave on presuppositions and assumptions that we are very rational to believe but which are not empirically testable. How for example do such people deal with ethical truths, aesthetic truths, or moral truths? As a matter of fact, even science itself (which they'd always want to fall back on ) works on lots of assumptions that have not been explicitly observed or proven. Such people who adopt these positions (Verificationists) cannot function much in society for their attitude is inimical to science itself and commonsense. On the whole, this philosophical Verificationism is self-referentially incoherent for it doesn't take much to figure out that any statement of Verificationist principles i[b]s by its very nature incapable of being empirically observed.[/b]

aight. . gotcha. thanks

But God, the one of religion, Judaism, Christianity or Islam, for example, isn't a concept, or idea, or whateva. . .God does stuff that can be sensed. He speaks and people hear, he creates, he takes, he gets angry and he punishes, etc. So if people deny this God based on their inability to sense him won't they be justified?  If the bible claims God intervenes in human history, and someone that has lived, say 40 years, has never experienced anything that support what these religions claim God is, isn't that all the justification he needs to deny the existence of that God?

I think most discussions about God on this forum are about the God of the Bible or Qu'ran. Unless someone states otherwise I just assume that is what is being discussed. That's why I was surprised to see someone using some mathematical equations to explain what Genesis does not tell me had anything to with math.

One thing I think Prizm and deep sight fail to grasp is that most of us just do not agree that God in the sense that the bible and koran potrays him does not exist, I could care less if something caused this planet or universe to start in the first place, you might have a point if you say the universe has a cause and can obscure it with whatever you like but when it comes down to the nitty gritty of proving that these things were explicitly sculpted and that whaever caused it to start is benevolent, can listen to thoughts forgives sins and sent his son to die, then I am pretty sure you will be biting your tongue.
I concede, let us assume that the universe did have a cause even though I see no reason why that cause would not have a cause (it is an endless regress) and think it is smarter to say that the universe is eternal but lets say for the sake of moving this argument forward I agree with you that it did have a cause, how do you make that magnanimous leap from cause to feelings and attributes of humans? how do you philosophically come to the point of this cause speaking to a select few and of course saying the wrong things?

Deep Sight:

@ pastor aio, the "1" in the equation is not necessarily God, just as the resultant 1 is not necessarily the universe. The equation is really metaphorical: to show that somethingness must be involved in the coming to be of somethingness.

As regards the question of intelligence - would you really compare the water in your kitchen sink to the cosmos? The cosmos is staggering in its beauty, tangents, movements, regeneration and the endless worlds it contains. Our earth, a mere pin prick in the universe, is similarly structured. The composite picture that emerges requires billions of perfectly interlocking relationships to form the resultant world.

I am certain you have seen the image of the eaarth as taken from the moon. Aside from the complex interlocking relationships that support its existence, it is also a spectacular work of art. I would suggest that it is a more stupendous body than water in your kitchen sink.

Is it really possible or logical that we can deny the existence of the element of intelligence, and also a sense of beauty? These elements are perforce attributes of the something that i talked about.

@ tudor, a proper understanding of the equations i set out earlier rules out your suggestion that the universe is itself the cause and intelligence. The basic law of cause and effect demonstrates this.

So there's a basic law of cause and effect yet you somehow make an exception for this uncaused cause god. . . .how funny!

Deep Sight:

@ pastor aio, the "1" in the equation is not necessarily God, just as the resultant 1 is not necessarily the universe. The equation is really metaphorical: to show that somethingness must be involved in the coming to be of somethingness.

As regards the question of intelligence - would you really compare the water in your kitchen sink to the cosmos? The cosmos is staggering in its beauty, tangents, movements, regeneration and the endless worlds it contains. Our earth, a mere pin prick in the universe, is similarly structured. The composite picture that emerges requires billions of perfectly interlocking relationships to form the resultant world.

I am certain you have seen the image of the eaarth as taken from the moon. Aside from the complex interlocking relationships that support its existence, it is also a spectacular work of art. I would suggest that it is a more stupendous body than water in your kitchen sink.

Is it really possible or logical that we can deny the existence of the element of intelligence, and also a sense of beauty? These elements are perforce attributes of the something that i talked about.

@ tudor, a proper understanding of the equations i set out earlier rules out your suggestion that the universe is itself the cause and intelligence. The basic law of cause and effect demonstrates this.

Hello. Did you see the questions I posted earlier. Here they are again;

So far, the only thing with which we all appear to agree is that the universe is something. There are two other points of contention, namely;

1) Something cannot come out of nothing. Although I accept the fact that the universe did not come from nothing, as it is accepted in cosmology that the universe came out of a singularity, it is not altogether clear whether this (ie, Something cannot come out of nothing) is true in all possible worlds.

2) That the universe is caused. You have not demonstrated this, but simply stated it as a fact. What are the conditions that obtained before the singularity started to expand, thus forming the universe? Is it conceivable that under those conditions uncaused things might have been happening?

Please, address these two points before proceeding to the rest of your arguments, otherwise your fundamental premises are untenable.

Deep Sight:

@ pastor aio, the "1" in the equation is not necessarily God, just as the resultant 1 is not necessarily the universe. The equation is really metaphorical: to show that somethingness must be involved in the coming to be of somethingness.

As regards the question of intelligence - would you really compare the water in your kitchen sink to the cosmos? The cosmos is staggering in its beauty, tangents, movements, regeneration and the endless worlds it contains. Our earth, a mere pin prick in the universe, is similarly structured. The composite picture that emerges requires billions of perfectly interlocking relationships to form the resultant world.

I am certain you have seen the image of the eaarth as taken from the moon. Aside from the complex interlocking relationships that support its existence, it is also a spectacular work of art. I would suggest that it is a more stupendous body than water in your kitchen sink.

Is it really possible or logical that we can deny the existence of the element of intelligence, and also a sense of beauty? These elements are perforce attributes of the something that i talked about.

@ tudor, a proper understanding of the equations i set out earlier rules out your suggestion that the universe is itself the cause and intelligence. The basic law of cause and effect demonstrates this.

Okay, a couple of things. Firstly, an equation doesn't describe a process. x + y = z does not mean that x and y together becomes z. It just means that they are the equivalent of each other.

and secondly, you really need to give a definition of what you mean by Intelligence because I see no connection between my understanding of the word and what you are saying.

For me complexity does not imply intelligence. In fact for me complexity is not intrinsic in any phenomena, but rather is a product of one's perspective on the phenomena. For example, look at the movement of the planets of our solar system. From a Geocentric perspective they make very complicated patterns. Some of them stop still in the sky and then start moving backwards. For example mercury changes direction 3 times a year and moves backwards for about 3 weeks. There are many weird and wonderful zig zag patterns and it's all very complicated.

But what happens when you change perspective at look at the solar system from an Heliocentric perspective. All of a sudden you get a very simple pattern of concentric circles with all the planets moving in one direction only around the Sun. Just by changing perspective the Complicated has become simple.
I would like to suggest that the complexity of this universe is due to the way in which you are viewing the universe and in fact there is another perspective that can actually see the universe as more 'at one' with itself. I keep finding complexity used in too many arguments by theists and Atheists too. I've never been impressed by any of the arguments. Especially Dawkin's argument that Complexity cannot arise from something less complex so therefore 'God must be more complex than the universe, but where did God's complexity arise from'.

huxley:

Hello. Did you see the questions I posted earlier. Here they are again;

So far, the only thing with which we all appear to agree is that the universe is something. There are two other points of contention, namely;

1) Something cannot come out of nothing. Although I accept the fact that the universe did not come from nothing, as it is accepted in cosmology that the universe came out of a singularity, it is not altogether clear whether this (ie, Something cannot come out of nothing) is true in all possible worlds.

2) That the universe is caused. You have not demonstrated this, but simply stated it as a fact. What are the conditions that obtained before the singularity started to expand, thus forming the universe? Is it conceivable that under those conditions uncaused things might have been happening?

Please, address these two points before proceeding to the rest of your arguments, otherwise your fundamental premises are untenable.

I'm not even prepared to say that the universe is something unless you first tell me what you mean by something as opposed to nothing.

The Something cannot come out of Nothing argument suggests to me that the universe must therefore be of the same substance as God, otherwise where did the substance of the universe come from, since God is all that existed prior to it's creation.

maybe all that exists is existence. . .not nothing, or something. maybe we just are. And evolution (of the entire universe) is just the process of existence becoming aware of itself. . .we keep evolving till we can grasp all of it. damn, i need to put this joint out and go to sleep.

Prizm:

I don't know what these theists you were listening to meant to say but sometimes, language can be a barrier to effective communication.

The theist does not believe in an irrational or non-rational God. Therefore if you heard a theist say that "God is not bound by logic", I'll agree with you that in a given understanding of that expression, one should have no business concerning oneself with a divine that is posited to be illogical, irrational or perhaps non-rational. I think that is at best, a poor choice of words. Why indeed should one bother with some entity which is alleged to be nonsensical?

Most christians say this words with all sincererity, they really mean it when they say god is not bound by human logic, Meaning the nature of their god and how he acts is beyond human comprehension for getting that their god hypothesis is all about people knowing their god and having a personal relationship with him as they always claim. The quote bible passages with says the cleverness of the wise is foolishness unto their god to support this claim.

But what if this is not what the theist meant by that statement? The mainstream position of theists on God is that God is an unembodied mind (incorporeal), omniscient, transcends the bounds of space of time and that he does not act in ways that contradict his very own nature. On that view, God is not deemed irrational or as "not bound by logic", but indeed God is posited as the embodiment of the loftiest and highest logic. As the very embodiment of superlative logic, he cannot act in ways that contradict his very own logical nature and thus does not flout the Laws of Logic (the law of non-contradiction in your example).

So the theist you were talking to probably meant to say that "God transcends human logic" - not that God is illogical or antithetical to reason or some other ill-conceived caricature. The theist probably wanted to express the infinitesimal scope of human reasoning or mentation when compared to God's. Like I said elsewhere, theists are not philosophical Verificationists; they can and do appeal to other inferences that are not strictly naturalistic or empirical.

If that is the case then there is no way to distinguish between a god who does not have to conform to logic "just because," and a god who does not have to conform to logic because he somehow has access to some higher logic that we are incapable of understanding. Functionally, the two claims are the same. If god is able to violate our human logic just because he has access to some kind of "higher logic," then god is still "not bound by logic," and you have no recourse if someone says that "god both exists and does not exist."

Knights! Arthur is back! Where's Lancelot,

Excellent comments guys, esp Prizm, Pastor & my dear Tudor. For me this is getting more interesting.

Let me make something very clear: I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ABRAHAMIC GOD - A BIG DADDY SITTING IN THE SKIES WHO CARES AND LISTENS TO PRAYERS.

I AM TRYING TO PROVE -

1. An Uncaused Cause Exists

2. It is Intelligent

3. It possesses attributes such as law, logic, a sense of order and a sense of the beautiful.

4. The composite picture formed reveals the existence of God - as should be properly understood.

5. That element, even if misrepresented, is the element referred to by established religion as God

huxley:

Hello. Did you see the questions I posted earlier. Here they are again;

So far, the only thing with which we all appear to agree is that the universe is something. There are two other points of contention, namely;

1) Something cannot come out of nothing. Although I accept the fact that the universe did not come from nothing, as it is accepted in cosmology that the universe came out of a singularity, it is not altogether clear whether this (ie, Something cannot come out of nothing) is true in all possible worlds.

2) That the universe is caused. You have not demonstrated this, but simply stated it as a fact. What are the conditions that obtained before the singularity started to expand, thus forming the universe? Is it conceivable that under those conditions uncaused things might have been happening?

Please, address these two points before proceeding to the rest of your arguments, otherwise your fundamental premises are untenable.

.

Huxley: Your fisrt question above takes us back to the first equation. It is true that something cannot come out of nothing and this applies in every possible realm, world, or trajectory. See my previous explanation on this on the first page. Basically, we said even if physical laws do change from world to world, the equation on the zero quantity can never change, because zero refers to nothingness and accordingly there is nothing to change in all circumstances. Your second question i will address by simply saying that once we agree that 0 + 0 = 0, THEN EVEN IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FIRST CAUSE WAS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE WAS ONE.

The job now is to determine its nature!

Tudór:

So there's a basic law of cause and effect yet you somehow make an exception for this uncaused cause god. . . .how funny!

@ Tudor: good question, but as i have said to huxley above, there will perforce be an uncaused cause since we have seen that the things in existence which we see needed a cause. For existence to be, there must be a principle that exists in itself without needing a cause. Think of the number 1 for example. Even if all the universe dissolved today and nothing exists at all - would the idea of "1" cease to exist? Or better still, the idea of zero - nothingness. Can this idea cease to exist? Can it be caused? Can it be created? No, it always was! Even nothingness itself is zero. These are things that cannot not exist - and thus do not need a cause. That's the sort of thing that the Uncauses Cause would be,

Will be back to answer Pastor soon,

Is there any such thing as the empirical reasoning for the existence of god? The question is what is god in the first place? What you define as god to you might be called something else by your next door neighbor the word god has no universal meaning or acceptance. People, at least theists define the word "'God" in agreement with their own beliefs, knowledge, culture and environment and along the timeline of history, its definition has constantly been slightly changed to conform with the basic nature of the human society and culture. There is no absolute and clear meaning in the word god. There is no need inferring on such a being or concept, because there is no logical point to it.

As mazaje has said all the gods of man made religions do not exist because they were created(written and conceived) by men like you and I. Man created god because of fear and lack of knowledge to help him better understand the word and give him some level of comfort or make him have dominion over others in one way or the other, when man didn't know how the earth was formed he decided to say that his own version of god created the earth, he didn't know how love worked, so it came from his own god. Even today, some theist that believe i big bang say that "It is caused by god." so I conclude that god is nothing more than something vague with no real meaning in other words to me god is ignorance to some level and comfort to another level.

Deep Sight:

Knights! Arthur is back! Where's Lancelot,

Excellent comments guys, esp Prizm, Pastor & my dear Tudor. For me this is getting more interesting.

Let me make something very clear: I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ABRAHAMIC GOD - A BIG DADDY SITTING IN THE SKIES WHO CARES AND LISTENS TO PRAYERS.

I AM TRYING TO PROVE -

1. An Uncaused Cause Exists

2. It is Intelligent

3. It possesses attributes such as law, logic, a sense of order and a sense of the beautiful.

4. The composite picture formed reveals the existence of God - as should be properly understood.

5. That element, even if misrepresented, is the element referred to by established religion as God
.

Huxley: Your fisrt question above takes us back to the first equation. It is true that something cannot come out of nothing and this applies in every possible realm, world, or trajectory. See my previous explanation on this on the first page. Basically, we said even if physical laws do change from world to world, the equation on the zero quantity can never change, because zero refers to nothingness and accordingly there is nothing to change in all circumstances. Your second question i will address by simply saying that once we agree that 0 + 0 = 0, THEN EVEN IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FIRST CAUSE WAS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE WAS ONE.[/b]The job now is to determine its nature!

@ Tudor: good question, but as i have said to huxley above, there will perforce be an uncaused cause since we have seen that the things in existence [b]which we see needed a cause. For existence to be, there must be a principle that exists in itself without needing a cause. Think of the number 1 for example. Even if all the universe dissolved today and nothing exists at all - would the idea of "1" cease to exist? Or better still, the idea of zero - nothingness. Can this idea cease to exist? Can it be caused? Can it be created? No, it always was! Even nothingness itself is zero. These are things that cannot not exist - and thus do not need a cause. That's the sort of thing that the Uncauses Cause would be,

Will be back to answer Pastor soon,

OK, it seem like we are agreed in the premise that "Something cannot come out of Nothing".  As Pastor has alluded in one of his posts, this premise itself might be a little vague in the sense that some of the words have not been given a firm definition yet;

1)  What is Something?

2)  What is Nothing?

Once we think we know what these terms are, can we apply them to tghe concept of god?

3)  Is God Something or is God Nothing?

And crucially

[size=16pt]
4)  If God is Something, then from what "Something" did god come?[/size]

Deep Sight:



I AM TRYING TO PROVE -

  1. An Uncaused Cause Exists
 
  2. It is Intelligent

  3. It possesses attributes such as law, logic, a sense of order and a sense of the beautiful.

  4. The composite picture formed reveals the existence of God - as should be properly understood.

  5. That element, even if misrepresented, is the element referred to by established religion as God

Scientist have done a lot of research and hard work in exploring the earth and some parts of the universe but they have yet to see the name or nature(as described by god believers) of any god in any part of the universe at all.I just don't see how science could miss evidence of god. Whoever or whatever created the universe and keeps it working (a created universe would need constant twicking every now and then) must be an extremely energetic entity that is always on the move and in motion.

I don't see how it could remain hidden to every scientific method of detection. Since scientist claim(with some degree of empirical evidence to show) that they can detect events that happen billions of miles away and billions of years in the past. How could we not detect a being that can speak a universe into existence. I just don't see it, it doesn't make any sense at all.

huxley:

OK, it seem like we are agreed in the premise that "Something cannot come out of Nothing".  As Pastor has alluded in one of his posts, this premise itself might be a little vague in the sense that some of the words have not been given a firm definition yet;

1)  What is Something?

2)  What is Nothing?

Once we think we know what these terms are, can we apply them to tghe concept of god?

3)  Is God Something or is God Nothing?

And crucially

[size=16pt]
4)  If God is Something, then from what "Something" did god come?[/size]

As I read this I was hoping that you would say, in the last line, "If the universe is Something, then . . . ", but you said "if God is Something . . . ". I think the universe is a more interesting line of inquiry. From what 'something' did the universe come. Since the only something prior would have been God, Is the universe of the same substance as God, did it spring from God (like, from his loins or something)? Following this line of inquiry would give us some hypothesis as to how the universe was created which I think is a more interesting investigation than how God came to be in the first place.

Pastor AIO:

As I read this I was hoping that you would say, in the last line, "If the universe is Something, then . . . ", but you said "if God is Something . . . ". I think the universe is a more interesting line of inquiry. From what 'something' did the universe come. Since the only something prior would have been God, Is the universe of the same substance as God, did it spring from God (like, from his loins or something)? Following this line of inquiry would give us some hypothesis as to how the universe was created which I think is a more interesting investigation than how God came to be in the first place.

Oga Tisha you too mush see as I dey hail you since, the both questions are very valid, where the God (something, ) sprout from and how did Universe (something, ) sprout from God ( something, )

Now we have canceled all the nothings and we are still no where, hmmmmmm I predicted this from the start. Still nothing new since sliced bread!

Chrisbenogor:

Oga Tisha you too mush see as I dey hail you since, the both questions are very valid, where the God (something, ) sprout from and how did Universe (something, ) sprout from God ( something, )

Now we have canceled all the nothings and we are still no where, hmmmmmm I predicted this from the start. Still nothing new since sliced bread!

Is sliced bread a something or is it a nothing? Or are you just trying to get something for nothing?

I dey hear you when you dey hail me o, but if you know how big dis my head is you go stop before it swells anymore and I die of elephantisis.

Anyway sha, we never settle the definition of someting and the definition of nutin. And I'm still wondering if something is ubiquitous and totally uniform can it be said to exist.

Chris so you love bread like this?
Oya prove that bread exists. . . .

Tudór:

Chris so you love bread like this?
Oya prove that bread exists. . . .

Wahlahi if you go am for agege you go see am pfor frenty frenty bread wey I dey sweet pass sugar
And I must ask you self, you don bite krayola abi? see as the guy wan dey vex pass you wey be my oga for vexing matters, can you imagine how the guy was trying to debate with noetic, lol in fact ROTFLMAO as I read the thread again LWKMD, wetin you do that innocent boy eh TUDOR TUDOR how many times I call you so?

Pastor AIO:

Is sliced bread a something or is it a nothing? Or are you just trying to get something for nothing?

I dey hear you when you dey hail me o, but if you know how big dis my head is you go stop before it swells anymore and I die of elephantisis.

Anyway sha, we never settle the definition of someting and the definition of nutin. And I'm still wondering if something is ubiquitous and totally uniform can it be said to exist.

Pastor,
You know say I no sabi break my head for all this things I just dey wait all of una for the junction where dem go say na so God take create the world and na so God love people then I go just meet Tudor to bite my neck too so that I go turn vampire pronto! lol

Let me rephrase and put it another way.  I'm sitting in my living room and everything is dead quiet.  I can't hear anything.  

Then all of a sudden my fridge stops humming.  Fridges do that they like to take a break and they kinda sigh every time they do it.  All of a sudden I became aware of the hum of the fridge that had been there all the time but I didn't hear it.  I only became aware of it when it stopped.  Why is that?

Obviously because are senses function by registering changes.  When something is there all the time (ie ubiquitous) and doesn't change the brain tunes it out.  We stop being aware of it.  The senses stop picking it up.  

Since we know the senses do this (both raw senses and instrumentated senses) can we really say that something does not exist if it cannot be sensed in any way, even with the aid of instruments.

Pastor AIO:

Let me rephrase and put it another way.  I'm sitting in my living room and everything is dead quiet.  I can't hear anything.  

Then all of a sudden my fridge stops humming.  Fridges do that they like to take a break and they kinda sigh every time they do it.  All of a sudden I became aware of the hum of the fridge that had been there all the time but I didn't hear it.  I only became aware of it when it stopped.  Why is that?

Obviously because are senses function by registering changes.  When something is there all the time (ie ubiquitous) and doesn't change the brain tunes it out.  We stop being aware of it.  The senses stop picking it up.  

Since we know the senses do this (both raw senses and instrumentated senses) can we really say that something does not exist if it cannot be sensed in any way, even with the aid of instruments.  

I get your point, our senses are not the best there is, the reason why we have to create implements that aid them. In the real sense of it you are actually still hearing he sound of the fridge and if someone brings it to your attention by saying hey the fridge is humming all of a sudden your brain switches and you begin to hear the sound, the bottom line is that if there is a sound or is there is something like a chameleon on the wall we would be able to register it if we focus and if all the human beings on the planet line up and focus to see it they will all see the same thing.
There are no senses to be employed in determining the spiritual if there are let us know, give us a spiritual example, I am also tired of this juxtaposing that seems to be going on, if it is like this on earth it should be like this on other planets or on other galaxies and I refuse to believe, just give us working examples is what we beg the theists lets stop assuming with zeros and ones.

Oh and yes I think if something cannot be sensed by humans and machines built to look for them, they do not exist to us.

Chrisbenogor:

Wahlahi if you go am for agege you go see am pfor frenty frenty bread wey I dey sweet pass sugar 
And I must ask you self, you don bite krayola abi? see as the guy wan dey vex pass you wey be my oga for vexing matters, can you imagine how the guy was trying to debate with noetic, lol in fact ROTFLMAO as I read the thread again LWKMD, wetin you do that innocent boy eh TUDOR TUDOR how many times

HA HA HA. . . .
Why you dey exaggerate na?. . . I never see krayola vex o, he's still an innocent. I give him one more month to complete the transformation.

ps: Na who tell you say i be oga for vexation?
Infact me thinks i'm as cool as ice. . . .

Tudór:

HA HA HA. . . .
Why you dey exaggerate na?. . . I never see krayola vex o, he's still an innocent. I give him one more month to complete the transformation.

ps: Na who tell you say i be oga for vexation?
Infact me thinks i'm as cool as ice. . . .

Ah you give him until the full moon comes out abi, na im be say na werewolf shows the guy go dey run, abeg I like your shock and awe style jo, infact I give one of my friend the method for facebook today the guy no believe say na me lol

Chrisbenogor:

Ah you give him until the full moon comes out abi, na im be say na werewolf shows the guy go dey run, abeg I like your shock and awe style jo, infact I give one of my friend the method for facebook today the guy no believe say na me lol

No be me tidy krayola oo. . . . Na you go ask am where him go encounter the spirit. . . Oya krayola over to you. . .

So you dey enjoy yourself for facebook abi?
That na betrayal of nairaland. . . .

haha. Na Tudor o!! I used to be a saint. . Na him carry me go watch Fela for shrine give me igbo!!

Being civil never helped anyone's cause on Nairaland. I have to go back to Naija soon so I have to get my mind back into the Jungle mentality. I'm slowly ridding myself of all traces of sensibility . . .very soon, I'll be back to being a true Nigerian.

I respectfully request to take part in this discussion of intellectuals. I believe in God,howeverI suspect this may be an act in futility,because:

1. Belief in the existence of God or the spiritual, relies on a non-scientific approach to issues (how else would one think the laying-on of hands would lead to healing of terminal diseases)

2. The laws of physics & mathematics are just that - physical laws,trying to deduce God from it may be difficult if not impossible^{(Tho' Im still waiting)}

3. Scientists no matter how great,have always left space for the unexplainable (or miraculous), which is the is the same uncharted area I think this thread delving into.

Jairzinho:



1. Belief in the existence of God or the spiritual, relies on a non-scientific approach to issues (how else would one think the laying-on of hands would lead to healing of terminal diseases)

How true is this really? All scientific investigations into therapeutic touch has shown that no such thing exist as far as I know.