Deep Sight:

Are you at home with what we have established thus far; namely:

  1. Since 0 + 0 = 0 then the Universe had to be caused by something

  2. That that "something" must be an irremovable and permanent quantity on the left side of the equation (e.g: 0 + 1 = 1)

  3. Accordingly we see logically that that "something" is a necessary and not contingent element, and thus is eternal -      such as numbers, for example, which needn't be created.

  4. That Design + Purpose = Mental Activity

  5. That the presence of mental activity and indeed the eternal nature of numbers presupposes an inherent intelligence within the "something" that caused the universe.

Thus so far we have extablished the existence of an eternal intelligent element which is the cause of the universe and all that exists.

If you are comfortable with the foregoing we can proceed.

No we are not.

AAARRRRRGGGHHH!!! 

Chrisbenogor, noone is goin to change our minds on anything relating to the existence of God, just like we are unlikely to convince most believers God does not exist. Make we hear the argument finish nah, biko   

Krayola2:

AAARRRRRGGGHHH!!! 

Chrisbenogor, noone is goin to change our minds on anything relating to the existence of God, just like we are unlikely to convince most believers God does not exist. Make we hear the argument finish nah, biko   

LOL he might as well just say there is God and leave it at that, why does he have to bind us to his view points first and then turn around to use them in proving God?
If the premises are wrong, the conclusion will most definitely be wrong.

1. Since 0 + 0 = 0 then the Universe had to be caused by something

2. That that "something" must be an irremovable and permanent quantity on the left side of the equation (e.g: 0 + 1 = 1)

He keeps using this equations and I have said time again that this is not a causation equation, 0 + ? = universe?
only Universe can satisfy the equation, 0 + ? = God, again only God can satisfy it, you should at least see my point or if deep sight is not explaining himself well abeg try for me because I am at a loss here.
Causation equations are complex
Force is a product of mass and acceleration of a body as elementary physics tells us.
In essence force is caused by the mass and acceleration of the body, thus
Force = mass * acceleration
If we say force is caused by something following his line of thought
0 + Something = Force
How correct is the above equation?
Only 0 + Force = Force and I have said that mathematically that equation makes no sense at all, its just like saying force.

Another dimension is the homogeneity of his equation, using our force equation we know the unit of mass is for instance g or kg as the case may be and for accleration m/s² , so the unit of force must be kgm/s² which is newton (N).

As such if we to add forces for instance we have to put a few things into consideration,
2N + 3W(watts) = ?
There is no dimensional homogeneity and as such we cannot add them up, in simple mathematical equations each variable or constant as the case my be will have units, and only numbers without units can be added and the answer will be a number that does not have a unit, so how did he get to
0 + 1 = 1
Therefore there is an intelligent being?
And this is just the analysis of number one and two what if I go on to the rest?

Furthermore,

3. Accordingly we see logically that that "something" is a necessary and not contingent element, and thus is eternal - such as numbers, for example, which needn't be created.

Do numbers have the intrinsic ability to interact with matter, that is the crux of the argument, how we came into being, numbers are imaginary. I read prizms arguments with interest and he used the cop out of what begins to exist. So what does he intend to achieve by the above statement? Numbers are imaginary, so where is the marriage between the imaginary and that something that can cause other things.

haha. i feel u, mehn. . trust me. I just need to hear the stuff. not a lot about religion makes sense. U just gotta let people tell u what they believe without imposing your own biases on it. Nobody that believes in God is goin to give u a solid argument. It isn't possible to prove God exists (also NOONE can prove God does not exist ). .  whether the religious God, or any other creator. . . tonnes of books have been written on this shit and nothing has been resolved.

Pretty much every religious person thinks his/her worldview is the right one, and that anybody that doesn't see it is just lost, silly, etc. Thats just how it is. . . deists are no different. . .not really dogmatic, but they think because they've bought the arguments everybody else should. Like Christians think u must believe in christ, and Muslims will tell u Allah is all that matters etc. So stop looking so hard for holes in the arguments. . .there are enough to fill up our entire universe. Just respect what they believe and let them tell u what it is. Because despite all the ridiculous stuff, religion still has some depth, wisdom, insight, and orisirisi good tins. SO try to get over the petty stuff. They believe in God, U don't. . . it doesn't mean they're dumb or crazy. They're obviously getting sumn out of it.

Krayola2:

haha. i feel u, mehn. . trust me. I just need to hear the stuff. not a lot about religion makes sense. U just gotta let people tell u what they believe without imposing your own biases on it. Nobody that believes in God is goin to give u a solid argument. It isn't possible to prove God exists (also NOONE can prove God does not exist ). .  whether the religious God, or any other creator. . . tonnes of books have been written on this shit and nothing has been resolved.

Pretty much every religious person thinks his/her worldview is the right one, and that anybody that doesn't see it is just lost, silly, etc. Thats just how it is. . . deists are no different. . .not really dogmatic, but they think because they've bought the arguments everybody else should. Like Christians think u must believe in christ, and Muslims will tell u Allah is all that matters etc. So stop looking so hard for holes in the arguments. . .there are enough to fill up our entire universe. Just respect what they believe and let them tell u what it is. Because despite all the ridiculous stuff, religion still has some depth, wisdom, insight, and orisirisi good tins. SO try to get over the petty stuff. They believe in God, U don't. . . it doesn't mean they're dumb or crazy. They're obviously getting sumn out of it.

Then he should open up another thread to tell us why he believes there is a God, no one will challenge him there, this is was his first post

I am opening this discussion specifically for Atheists on Nairaland.

I have noticed that the Atheists are often very intelligent people, almost to a fault, and have strong respect for rational thinking.

I am neither Christian nor Muslim, but[b] i am convinced that logical reasoning can prove the existence of God.[/b]

Tudor is my specific target in this discussion.

The levels of reasoning required to set out this argument are very intricate - for this reason i will build up the argument slowly, one step at a time.

Those not inclined to deep reflection on matters of spirituality and logic, please keep off, this is an academic and theological discourse only and i am not interested in the views of any religious fanatics save to the extent that they may contribute in an academic and logical fashion to the discourse.

So lets kick it off: Tudor, do you agree with this equation -

0 + 0 = 0.

So dear krayola this was infact the first post, if he wants us to discuss logic then by all means we will, if he wants to tell a story on the other hand he should let us know too.

ok, shief.  (I nominated u for mod, i hope u get the job , if u want it)

@ deepsight. . .

you said something like God must have existed before the big bang, which was the start of space and time.

"before" and "after" are  measurements of time, aren't they? so if time does not exist, can there be a "before"?. Is there anything logical there?

Krayola2:

ok, shief.  (I nominated u for mod, i hope u get the job , if u want it)

@ deepsight. . .

you said something like God must have existed before the big bang, which was the start of space and time.

"before" and "after" are  measurements of time, aren't they? so if time does not exist, can there be a "before"?. Is there anything logical there?

Great observation. Huxley once posted a thread saying that Jesus was slaughtered from the foundation of the world. He said that meant that Jesus's sacrifice occurred at creation. I said not necessarily. The foundation of the world doesn't have to be a point in time. Every moment in time is suffused with eternity.

My dear valiant Knights of the Round table -

Many apologies for the delayed reversion. It was a hectic weekend for me filled with loads of energetic sex.

I realized as a consequence that the answer to our debate is very simple: God must be a woman, and surely originated between those legs!

Getting serious though, before i begin to address again our core deductive argument per se, i noticed two very interesting posts which i feel compelled to comment upon. I hope this will not create a sub-argument which will derail the thread, but contribute to a holistic delivery of the desired conclusion.

Krayola2:


@ deepsight. . .

you said something like God must have existed before the big bang, which was the start of space and time.

"before" and "after" are measurements of time, aren't they? so if time does not exist, can there be a "before"?. Is there anything logical there?

Let us reflect closely on this: Is it possible for time not to exist?

Pastor AIO:

Great observation. Huxley once posted a thread saying that Jesus was slaughtered from the foundation of the world. He said that meant that Jesus's sacrifice occurred at creation. I said not necessarily. The foundation of the world doesn't have to be a point in time. Every moment in time is suffused with eternity.

Great one, Pastor AIO - Every moment is indeed suffused with eternity.

I absolutely disagree with the supposition made by many thinkers and scientists that Space and Time were created by or at the moment of the big bang.

Space and Time are indefinite intangible continuums which are infinite by their very nature.

Is it really possible to state that Time did not exist at any point?

What really is Time?

The Big Bang happened at a POINT in time and merely serves as the commencement of THIS universe. Lord knows how many universes exist, and the eternal quantity called Time cannot be circumscribed by reference to ANY physical event, including the Big Bang. The Big Bang is an expansion of matter, but it should be noted that that matter is expanding into already existing space.

Thus we cannot state that Space and Time were created by the Big Bang. Space and Time are eternal and infinite continuums which have existed eternally before the Big Bang and will exist eternally by their intrinsic nature.

I hope to demonstrate as we go along that along with numbers, Space and Time are core immutable aspects of the nature of God - constituent elements that exist inherently without needing a cause and in unison, form the cause for the existence of contingent elements.

DeepSight,

You said the following:

@ mazaje - i am not a slavish adherent of anything fed to me by any one. You should have noticed that by now. It took me many years to arrive at my conclusions trust me. In the past i have been an Anglican, Jehovah's Witness, Rosicrucian, considered Islam, and almost Crossbearer. I have read the bible, the quoran, the grail message, and many Buddhist, Taoist, shintoist, and even hindu philosophies because i am a SEEKER. So don't worry, lets just reason along little by little, we will get there,

If this is true, then you have indeed been an inverterate seeker after the "spiritual", whatever that means. I am curious - what did you learn from all these "philosophies" about how reality is constituted? In other words;

[size=14pt]What TRUTHS about the nature of reality have any of the spiritual philosophies and theological traditions ever elucidated or discovered?
[/size]

Did any of these traditions ever reveal the truth about humans origins as being from Africa?

Did any of these traditions say anything about our place in the vastness of the cosmos?

Have the revealled any TRUTHS that have advanced the plight of humankind on this planet?

Respectfully, Huxley, these questions are entirely outside the purview of this thread and what i set out to prove, so i wish not to be distracted by them, thanks.

Deep Sight:

Respectfully, Huxley, these questions are entirely outside the purview of this thread and what i set out to prove, so i wish not to be distracted by them, thanks.

OK, do you mind addressing these on a separate thread?

That's fine, open the thread, i will meet you there.

Deep Sight:

That's fine, open the thread, i will meet you there.

Thankx. Have just opened this thread for that discussion: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-323561.0.html

Hey Huxley:

On a light hearted note, I want to playfully ask you why you emphasize points or questions with really huge bolded red font? It makes  your write up look a bit untidy if you ask me  Or, are you under the impression that if you simply bolded or italicized the question or point you want to emphasize, your interlocutor will miss it? I used to do this, but I've stopped doing that. Sometimes, when I see these dinosauric red fonts, I get the distinct impression you are screaming more than is really necessary. LOL, I hope I am just mistaken there. If you want to set apart the emphasized question or comment with a different color, how about using blue or any one of these colors that are easy on the eye? 

Anyway, back to the issue. I was sort of waiting for a response to my last post hoping that you are no longer under the weather. But then, when I saw your last few posts to this thread, I went to review your last post directed at me. It was then that I re-discovered that you are withholding your response. Your reason for that was that you said your response depended on my answer to a certain question.

If I may be bold to say, I do not see the immediate relevance of your question to the matter at hand (The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God). I was waiting to see if you had other responses to the main point we were discussing there. I’d rather have that issue resolved in some form or fashion before venturing into other related issues.

Now, if you feel that the question you asked me is somehow very important to continue or to advance that discussion, I’ll leave it up to you to flesh that out. In other words, this question:

“Are all entities and beings (transcendent minds and non-transcendent minds ) within and without (like God) the universe, subject to the same rules or laws  of logic?  Or are there some rules/laws of logic that are applicable to some beings and not to others?  Further, do you think the rules/laws of logic are immutable?”

has little or no direct bearing on the premises of the Cosmological Argument we were having. I think it is an unnecessary distraction from the discussion. I am sure that in other deeply philosophical discussions, we may contemplate that question and perhaps have a healthy but informed difference in opinion.

If you disagree with this, then it is up to you to demonstrate to me the relevance of this question to the topic at hand. This plainly means that instead of asking me a question here, you should be espousing an idea or concept that I’ll have to consider. Furthermore, it is up to you to then tie in this concept that you wish to illuminate with the rest of your response to my post. At that point, I’ll then have to reply stating whether we agree on the point you were making or not. 

If I have any objections, I’ll make it known to you with good reasons why. This is the sort of give and take that is supposed to take place here on this issue if we were truly having a friendly conversation– unless of course you were under the erroneous impression that I am here to be interrogated by you. I am trying to have a discussion with you here which means that I’ll need you to take positions or state your positions when they differ from mine.

So, I am trying to get you away from this discussional habit where all you seem to be able to do is cherry-pick sentences out of a paragraph/block of  your interlocutor's explanatory text, or cherry-pick clauses and phrases from whole sentences to wrestle with, WITHOUT ACTUALLY TAKING OR ADVANCING A SOLID DISCERNIBLE POSITION OF YOUR OWN. You’ll need to build your own case; you’ll need to flesh out your views and offer it as a healthy objection to the views I have shared if we are to make any meaningful progress here.

What exactly are you offering up for me to consider in these lengthy God discussions? This is what I meant when I asked you for a justification for your atheism. I wasn’t merely asking you to tell me the possibly fantastic reasons why you became an atheist. I am asking you to build a case that would lead to the deduction that there is no God. Think about it. I am asking you the same question that you’d ask a theist.  Therefore, your personal testimony (maybe about the ills of religion or the insincerity and hypocrisy of theists or perhaps the possible inconsistencies in the alleged divinely inspired or revered texts), while it makes for an interesting read, is ultimately beside the point. Theists could equally offer a simple personal testimony about some personal experience and use that alone as the reason for why they hold their God-belief.  That would be a good reason as any, if you ask me, but of course I know that such a reply would not convince you, would it?

I was going to raise the same question on his strange red font! Quite scary if you ask me.

Prizm - Don't wait up for it - while we bother our heads prsenting defensible cases for the positive existence of God, no atheist has ever, or will ever present a case for his positive non-existence.

This is because they know full well his non-existence can never be proven.

Nevertheless, they are somewhat justified in taking the position that it's not their task to advance proof, but ours.

In the words of the great Betrand Russell:



“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

I am sure you see from the above the lucid reason why it might not be apt to ask an atheist for reasons or proof.

We are the ones asserting the existence of a quantity that cannot be seen, and so the burden of proof, if any, falls with us.

I keep waiting for this elusive proof brother deep sight promised, so far so good. . . .

Deep Sight:

I am sure that you had noble intentions when you typed your last response to me. But unless you’ve not been reading my discussions with Huxley, I see no reason why you would say some of the things you just said.

I have gone over this issue of the burden of proof at length with Huxley. If you have not read them, I think it would do you well to actually read them to see and understand what I have actually written.  Otherwise, I see no sense in trying to make out that you and I are necessarily in the same camp, or essentially saying the same things. For the avoidance of all doubt, the burden of proof cannot be shirked by the atheist here.

Therefore, I find it strange that you, as someone purporting to be arguing from a theist worldview, have said something that essentially reads like you’ve shot yourself in the foot. If you think that someone who confidently asserts that there is no God requires no justification for that assertion, then please exclude me from your company. I DO NOT HOLD THAT VIEW. I’ll let you shoulder the burden of advancing positions for which the hardened skeptic can sit around and shoot down all day long. I have no stomach for the sort of pointless discussions where hardened skeptics sit around and interrogate their opponent as it were, splitting hairs over words and meanings while offering no justification for their counter position if any.

As far as I am concerned, nothing is gained by such an effort. For me to discuss or debate with someone on an issue, such a person has to give me something to work with; an idea or a concept to accept or reject; a position to affirm or deny. It is just that simple because this is not a one-sided interview. If an atheist insists that he has no justification or proof for his atheism, or that he has no burden of proof for making the claim to the knowledge that God does not exist, then he is simply taking his atheistic stance “by faith”; and to me, he is just as irrational as a theist who believes in God just by faith alone.

Now, coming to the famous Russell’s Teapot, it is very plain to see what the false reasoning in that parody is. This atheist’s objection to God seems to be based on the idea that there is no evidence of a physical or material God that he may see or touch. But ask yourself, how many people live their daily lives by believing and operating on only those things they have actually physically seen or observed? This extreme skepticism poses a serious problem for science itself. There are some concepts that we have to assume or presuppose to do science for such concepts are not readily verifiable by strict empirical methods but nevertheless we are fully rational to believe them.

Let us consider this issue of believing only those things which can be seen. Who has seen numbers or the entire set of natural numbers from negative infinity to zero to positive infinity? No one has. It is not even possible to see numbers because numbers are abstract entities. You may have seen and counted physical objects or you may have seen numerals (a pictorial or handwritten representation of a number), but no one has or can ever see a number. On what basis then are we supposed to doubt the existence of numbers because they cannot be seen? Numbers exist whether there are people around to apprehend a realm of numbers or not. That one does not comprehend the existence of numbers is completely irrelevant to their existence. There are all sorts of notions like this example in which a skeptic would be deemed extremely peculiar for not believing simply because he has not seen.

At any rate, it is not surprising that he likened the idea of a God to some teapot orbiting the sun. He imagines that a belief in God is similar to a belief that there could be some unknown teapot floating in orbit between Earth and Mars. Should we be agnostic about the existence of this teapot then? The answer is NO. The reason why we do not believe that Russell’s Celestial teapot exists is because we know that it wasn’t put there by either American or Russian astronauts!  Besides, matter in the vast expanse of this universe’s space-time does not spontaneously self-organize into teapot shapes – not to talk of delicate ceramic teapots or other remorseless pieces of china!

Deep Sight, if according to you, the world did not start from nothing as apparently everything has to start from somewhere: My question is why do you stop the chain at god/God. Where did the creator start from?
I was just bothered at your selective start and end in the process. That is my 2 cents

@ Prizm - Fair enough, each person must after all, make his own case, each distinct, each different.

However you lead me to believe that the core moral of the Russell quote was lost on you, and perhaps it is apt to have some perspective on the principle of burden of proof. In this perhaps i am somewhat tainted by my legal background as the term "burden of proof" has a distinct legal connotation.

In a sentence, the principle states - "He who asserts must prove".

However it is worth noting that this refers to a positive assertion as opposed to a negative assertion. In other words if i were to make the positive statement: "Michael Jackson is standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest" - the burden of proving that would rest on me, and not on the person who makes the negative assertion - "Michael Jackson is not standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest."

It is for this reason that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who are making the positive statement - "He did it" and not with the defence who are making the negative statement - "He did not do it."

This is why i was somewhat bemused when you stated: "Besides, matter in the vast expanse of this universe’s space-time does not spontaneously self-organize into teapot shapes – not to talk of delicate ceramic teapots or other remorseless pieces of china" -

Because Mr. Russell's point has got nothing to do with that. His analogy simply is directed at showing up the flaw in insisting that the non-existence of something that has not been observed, or cannot be observed, must be proved by the skeptic. A grasp of the "absence of evidence" theorem will suggest that this is an absolute impossibility: and also an incongruity -  the atheists will never attempt to prove the non-existence of God, as such can never be done, nor does it make sense to ask them to come up with the evidence for a negative assertion.

It's quite simply a contradiction in terms.

But i digress.

Let us return to the core deductive argument.

So far i have put a number of propositions on the table. In addittion to my earlier equations, i will like to introduce the one i believe to be the most compelling - that is, if you all can fall into step with it on a mental level.

Here goes: Tudor -

Do you accept the principle of Duality: namely - that every quantity, element, or concept, must perforce have a logical reverse - for example  - up and down, light and dark, positive and negative?

Deep Sight:


Here goes: Tudor -

Do you accept the principle of Duality: namely - that every quantity, element, or concept, must perforce have a logical reverse - for example  - up and down, light and dark, positive and negative?

Interesting. I wasn't expecting you to pull that in. I wonder where you'll go with it. My position is that there is a way of perceiving and thinking about the world that is dualistic thus every 'quantity, element, or concept must perforce have a logical revrse'. But that way is not the only way that the universe can be apprehended. It is possible to go beyond duality.

Deep Sight:



Here goes: Tudor -

Do you accept the principle of Duality: namely - that every quantity, element, or concept, must perforce have a logical reverse - for example  - up and down, light and dark, positive and negative?

Really?
Everything Must have a logical reverse?
What is the logical reverse of the following, gravity, earth, copper, sodium, man, electromagnetism, distance, numbers, cold, rain, nairaland, nigeria, spirit, soul, earth, milky way, supernovas. . . .

@ Tudor - You give me a very easy question! And my answer, i hope, will bring you up to speed in terms of the non-physical reasoning we are trying to extablish!

For the physical things in your list, the reverse is simply: non-physical! (E.g: Tangible/ Intangible).

For the non-physical forces you mentioned (e.g: gravity), the reverse is simply the absence of that force!

For the rest the answers are so simple i am astonished you could ask it -

Cold? Heat obviously! Please don't fritter away our precious time with such trivia!

Man? Woman!

A nation (defined as a joined ethnic group?) Nomads!

This is the last time i will spend my quality time answering questions such as these, Tudor. Rather than toss these trivia around, please answer the question: Is the principle of duality not self evident in all that exists?

Re: Light/ Dark - Up/ Down - Good/Bad - something/nothing - etc. Answer me, Tudor, no more pranks.

Hello Prizm,

Have been a little indisposed and busy at work so I could not devote time to your detailed response to my post. Further I would have liked to see you attempt my question about the laws of logic and whether god is bound by such laws. Alas, you did not.

On the issue of why I highlight and enbolden some of my text - well this is an editorial device to draw attention to salient points in narrative. All the major publishers of books, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc, etc, use this technique to attract the reader attention. In my case, if you did not want to read the full text, you might get the gisp from the highlighted bits.


Our discussions really centre around the following;

1) The Cosmological Argument.

2) Other sub-topics like Ontology of entities (Dragons, Satyr, etc) , meaning of words (atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc)

3) And importantly, you have challenge me to explain WHY I am an atheist, which I shall do in a subsequent post.

You have specifically challenged my to take a stand. Well my position is obvious - I am an atheist. As to how I justified my position, well that is why I introduce item 2 above - the question of the ontology of god. The other interesting issue was where the burden of proof lies.

Now, to the main debate. I ask you how you came to know that Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation - I asked whether it is 1) a priori 2) a posteriori 3) both a priori and a posteriori 4). You responded by asking:

Thanks for asking these questions. But before I answer them, I have a few questions to ask you first to see, from your answer, if we are working with the same meanings. I’ll make a number of statements and I’ll need you to tell me if you think these truth statements are a) a priori b) a posteriori c) both a priori and a posteriori d) None of the above.
i) Everything that has a shape has a size

ii) No event precedes itself

iii) Nothing can be red all over and at the same time blue all over

For each of these statements or premises (i-iii) I’ll need you to tell me whether your choice from (A) to (D), whatever that choice is, refutes or negates the premise. That is the real issue here.

These are my answers:

i) Everything that has a shape has a size: If this is true, which I am not 100% sure it is, then it is a priori. My strong feeling is that it is a priori.

ii) No event precedes itself: a priori

iii) Nothing can be red all over and at the same time blue all over. a priori.

Whether something is knowledge a priori or a posteriori is not a matter that refutes any premise. It simply allows us to assess the reliability of said knowledge. So if you say that

Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation

It is important that we know whether this knowledge is a priori or a posteriori. If it is a priori, then it is true beyond any doubt - it is true by definition or by necessity. However, if it is known a posteriori, then it is conceivable that this might not be true (in some situation).


On the question of the radioactivity of elements, you said

I suspect that the problem here is that you misunderstand the stochastic (random) and indeterminate/unpredictable nature of this spontaneous process to mean that it doesn’t have a cause or explanation. The cause or explanation of radioactive decay is simple – it is unstable nuclei. As a matter of fact, all you need to do is keep reading the Wikipedia page you got your definition from to see that radioactive decay is not even that mysterious. It is richly governed by the physical laws. Radioactive decay (of any type) is only possible because of the presence of unstable or radioactive nuclides. Radioactive or unstable nuclei, based on their configuration, have the property that a random slight disturbance could upset the apple cart as it were and facilitate another rearrangement of the particles in the nucleus followed by the release of heat energy. This is essentially what radioactive decay is. When a stable or ground state is reached, such decays cease.

Basically, that the unstable nuclei "causes" the decay. While this is true in the simple sense, I don't think it is true by the strict definitions of the notion of causation. Causation implies an event acting on some material to generate an effect. I doubt if the instability of the nuclei could be classed as an event. Can you conceive of a situation where the cause (which you say is the instability of the nuclei) is withdrawn C-14 to stop it decaying into N-14?

If you don't agree with this analysis, can you supply your definition of Causation?


Now on the questions of Ontology

I asked,

Can you explain how a NECESSARY transcendent unembodied (note the correction) being inter-acts with a physical universe? BY WHAT MECHANISM?
Which I elaborated with the questions:

1) Does he (God) created material things within the universe? If so, by what mechanism?

2) Can he (God) move an object from A to B? If so, by what mechanism?


From your various posts, I am able to gleen your ontological status of God as the following;

1) is a Necessary entity
2) transcendent being or mind
3) manifests freewill
4) unembodied
5) omnipotence or omniscience
6) consciousness but free will, superlative reason and logic.
7) with no spatial, material or temporal component

The above are attributes that you have used in various places in your post. You have also said the following about the ontological status of god;

If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

As an omnipotent being however, he can interact and directly impact the physical realm/universe. So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. Such interventions would appropriately be supernatural interventions since by definition, a supernatural event is not simply an ‘implausible’, ‘impossible’ or counter-intuitive event, BUT an event that in its proper context cannot be adequately explained by a simplistic recourse to naturalistic explanations.

So you see - on one breath you say God is unembodies, necessary (which implies transcendent), and on the other you say "So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form.

[size=14pt]
Does this not smack of contradiction to you? Can God assume material form or not? If he can, does he lose his status as being necessary and transcendent? Can God bring a state of affair where he is material form? If he cannot can he be said to be omnipotent?
[/size]


I contend that your definition of God is illogical, internally contradictory and incoherent.

Take for instance the following question.


Can you create an object that is too big and heavy for you to lift? Can God do the same - i.e., Can God create something that is too big and heavy for him to lift?


Basically, no ontological definition I have seem so far has internal consistency, and all fail all logical and coherence tests. Because I have not come across any definition of God that is logical, coherent and consistent, I have no choice but to disbelief the concepts of God I have been presented with thus far. That explains why I am an atheist.

So you see, I need a consistent, valid, logical, coherent ontology of God, lacking in internal contradictions before I might consider changing my position. The gods you have define makes no sense. So tell me if your god can assume material form, by what means he does that, whether assuming material form makes him contingent and non-transcendent. If he cannot do these things, can he be said to be omnipotent?

I rest.

Deep Sight:

@ Tudor - You give me a very easy question! And my answer, i hope, will bring you up to speed in terms of the non-physical reasoning we are trying to extablish!

For the physical things in your list, the reverse is simply: non-physical! (E.g: Tangible/ Intangible).

For the non-physical forces you mentioned (e.g: gravity), the reverse is simply the absence of that force!

For the rest the answers are so simple i am astonished you could ask it -

Cold? Heat obviously! Please don't fritter away our precious time with such trivia!

Man? Woman!

A nation (defined as a joined ethnic group?) Nomads!

This is the last time i will spend my quality time answering questions such as these, Tudor. Rather than toss these trivia around, please answer the question: Is the principle of duality not self evident in all that exists?

Re: Light/ Dark - Up/ Down - Good/Bad - something/nothing - etc. Answer me, Tudor, no more pranks.

Ha ha dude, I'm not here to make life difficult for you. I asked the questions albeit easy so as to be explicitly clear on what you mean by "duality".
Since you choose to see the world in black and white so be it. I agree with you, carry on.

P.S : if the logical reverse of full is empty, what is the LR of half? (just curious )

Huxley; your posts indicate that you seem not be be contesting the existence of God, but his nature, yes?

Deep Sight:

Huxley; your posts indicate that you seem not be be contesting the existence of God, but his nature, yes?

Absolutely YES. His nature, if logical and consistent, would render his existence more likely. Similarly, if illogical, internally inconsistent and incoherent would make his existence unlikely.

Take a look at these to see where I am coming from!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0WTtevBcQE&feature=sub



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Xv3a70fGw&feature=sub

huxley:

Take a look at these to see where I am coming from!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0WTtevBcQE&feature=sub



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Xv3a70fGw&feature=sub

Don't forget to watch these videos!

If the quantum field is what you are referring to as God the creator,then yes,it exists.There is no disproving it.
If "who" you refer to as god,on the other hand, is the OT deity of the jews is whom you are trying to empirically prove "his" existence,then you will fail ignominously. . .in short,you have already failed. . .

@ Jagunlabi - I have said repeatedly that i am[b] NOT[/b] trying to prove the existence of the Abrahamic God.

Thus, i succeed in proving the existence of an uncaused cause, an eternal existent and permanent quantity, which you define as "The Quantum Field."

This is what Tudor seems not to get.

Yes; i left this off at the point of discussing how the principle of duality is another proof of the existence of God. . .

Let's go . . .