Pastor - Seems to me you have not appreciated the meaning of "necessary" things as opposed to "contingent" things.

[QUOTE]Hello Easylogic, I think that you are presuming that there has to be a mechanism for everything. Apart from the fact that we instinctive believe that events are brought about by a mechanism there is no actual proof. Why can events not spontaneously occur? Why must there be a mechanism (or process) that brought it about?

Are necessity and contingency really mutually exclusive? [/QUOTE]

Pastor,

I think the law of causality is one of the most basic laws that we have.There is no one who believes that things just pop into existence without a cause.If a coin, rabbit or horse cannot pop into existence uncaused,then why believe that a whole univewrse consisting of all space and matter can do so?

Even if events occur spontaneously,there is no reason to suppose they occured without a cause.The big bang may have occurred spontaneously,but it does not follow that it occurred without a course.

About contingency and necessity,it is pretty obvious that they are opposites.Unless you are using a different meaning of both words.

Hi Deep Sight and all,

Over the course of the last few days, a few materials have come to hand during my studies that opened up quite some interesting thoughts on this issue of singularity. I came to realise that we don't know as we think we do (especially as applies in my case). Following my post #14 from the previous page, I might need to pause a while and give some consideration to the gist in Deep Sight's perspectives on singularity and infinity - I think you're really on to something!

More later, as soon as I can find time to gather my thoughts together and wrap this neatly so that our readers can easily digest and follow.

Cheers.

And another great thread went south. . .

Deep Sight:

And another great thread went south. . .

I agree.We had great threads here.Maybe we should revive some, or start other great ones.By the way,are you still a deist or you crossed over to Christianity?

Easylogic! Nice to see you popping in again. . . a great head you've got on those shoulders, bro.

Why do you ask about crossing over to xtianity? Do you have such an expectation of me?

Deep Sight:

Easylogic! Nice to see you popping in again. . . a great head you've got on those shoulders, bro.

Why do you ask about crossing over to xtianity? Do you have such an expectation of me?

Haha,It is usually a thin line between Deism and Christianity!!I never quite could figure which argument you considered the greatest barrier to Christianity .Is it the Problem of evil? By the way where is Vairo?

Viaro is on an extended strike. its been ages since he posted on this Forum.

Barriers to Christianity?

Yes, you are right, for me it has a wholly unsatisfactory view as to the origin of evil and the treatment of evil. The Genesis account regarding the fall of man may have deeper symbolic indications: but it nonetheless remains for me a far cry from that which will resonate within the spirit as the truth regarding the origin of evil and the general question of evil.

The entire ontology of God as depicted within the Bible is contradictory and internally inconsistent. God is depicted in the Old Testament as genocidal and barbaric: in the New Testament he is depicted as an all forgiving Santa Claus who could not hurt a fly: I can not accept that God is changeable: the bible presents us with a changeable God, whereas I am persuaded that God being a necessay and self-existent factor, remains immutable and unchangeable.

Regarding that which is required for salvation, it ticks me off that the NT presents a picture of a situation whereby it appears that the rules of the game had been changed half-way: that whereas once obedience to the law was required, the NT emphasizes belief in christ and grace. I have no problem with either: but like I said I do not believe in a changeable God. For me, God is and remains immutable: and accordingly God's standards and requirements for salvation would also be immutable and unchangeable from eternity to eternity.

I can not accept the idea that God arranged a sacrificial death for the remittance of sins. I regard this as completely averse to everything that I understand God to be. I believe in the exacting justice of God: and for me that justice is not satisfied by such a bizzarre arrangement.

I do not believe in or accept the deity of Christ. I believe that Jesus was a human being like any other. Accordingly I am seriously turned off by the christian tendency to worship Jesus, the claims that Jesus is God, the doctrine of the trinity, etc. Frankly I regard these as blasphemies. At all events I am aware that it has been the tendency of mankind to deify their spiritual leaders and I regard the case of Jesus as being no different. I simply cannot bring myself to go along with these things.

I do believe in a spiritual tractectory for the spirit of man. And I firmly believe that all men of any religious or cultural persuation may attain spiritual light if they will live in simplicity in accordance with the dictates of a conscience premised on love - whether or not they ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth or not.

Deep Sight:

Viaro is on an extended strike. its been ages since he posted on this Forum.

Barriers to Christianity?

Yes, you are right, for me it has a wholly unsatisfactory view as to the origin of evil and the treatment of evil. The Genesis account regarding the fall of man may have deeper symbolic indications: but it nonetheless remains for me a far cry from that which will resonate within the spirit as the truth regarding the origin of evil and the general question of evil.

The entire ontology of God as depicted within the Bible is contradictory and internally inconsistent. God is depicted in the Old Testament as genocidal and barbaric: in the New Testament he is depicted as an all forgiving Santa Claus who could not hurt a fly: I can not accept that God is changeable: the bible presents us with a changeable God, whereas I am persuaded that God being a necessay and self-existent factor, remains immutable and unchangeable.

Regarding that which is required for salvation, it ticks me off that the NT presents a picture of a situation whereby it appears that the rules of the game had been changed half-way: that whereas once obedience to the law was required, the NT emphasizes belief in christ and grace. I have no problem with either: but like I said I do not believe in a changeable God. For me, God is and remains immutable: and accordingly God's standards and requirements for salvation would also be immutable and unchangeable from eternity to eternity.

I can not accept the idea that God arranged a sacrificial death for the remittance of sins. I regard this as completely averse to everything that I understand God to be. I believe in the exacting justice of God: and for me that justice is not satisfied by such a bizzarre arrangement.

I do not believe in or accept the deity of Christ. I believe that Jesus was a human being like any other. Accordingly I am seriously turned off by the christian tendency to worship Jesus, the claims that Jesus is God, the doctrine of the trinity, etc. Frankly I regard these as blasphemies. At all events I am aware that it has been the tendency of mankind to deify their spiritual leaders and I regard the case of Jesus as being no different. I simply cannot bring myself to go along with these things.

I do believe in a spiritual tractectory for the spirit of man. And I firmly believe that all men of any religious or cultural persuation may attain spiritual light if they will live in simplicity in accordance with the dictates of a conscience premised on love - whether or not they ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth or not.

Interesting.Maybe we could move this to a new thread and discuss it there,hehe for Old times sake.Maybe we will be able to draw Vairo from his hiding place too.I am going to start a thread and post the link here and we can start a CIVIL discussion there.Think of it as a sort of tea party where old folks are discussing the bigger things in life.a non confrontational yet stimulating discussion.

That would be great, Easylogic. Lookforward to the post.

Deep Sight:

That would be great, Easylogic. Lookforward to the post.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-568346.0.html#msg7335210

thats the thread.

Jaarrrrrrhhhhhhhh!

viaro:
Perhaps I should not be too hasty to jump to the intrigues of numbers . . but let me start by making a few preliminary remarks that birthed this thread.

First, I'd like to note that this is not a thread to offer carbonated religious appetizers. No offences meant; but even though I am a Christian, I sincerely believe that we can reason outside the box and consider exploring what we might not have ever dreamed of in our comfortable religious specters. I do not even intend to lace this thread with assertive conclusions that limit our musings to any ardent system(s).

That said, let me highlight another point that sparked my interest to float this thread: playing with numbers. Like I said sometime ago, as long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343779.0.html#msg4819222) - and this "magic" among other things is what I'd like to demonstrate for those with some interest in this area. It might be somewhat pivotal to drum home this very point just so that we get to appreciate the value of 'universality index' (if you grant that) in all of this.

This is not some cosmetic talk with cleverly framed grammar, lol. Rather, it is important for us to see the possibility of just how we could all be "both right and wrong" at the same time, particularly depending on the context & perspectives of each discussant's insight. However, it need not be limited to "abstract quantifying" - other considerations are very welcome.

Now a few things need to be cleared up.

(1).  What in the world would I mean by 'universality index'?
[list]Nothing special other than an idea - the idea being the possibility that nearly all contrasting, coherent and consumate phenomena point back to a singularity upon which any form of diversity is predicated. Hmmm, that is certainly a mouthful, and indeed an ambitious statement to assert. Along the line, I'll try and develop the idea and probably help to prod (and possibly awaken) a philosophical spark in some of my audience.[/list]

(2).  Secondly, what could be meant by "abstract quantifying/quantification"?*
[list]Again, as far as this thread goes, no special deal to that other than the idea that certain entities and qualities assume only 'specific parameters' for them to be valid. Therefore, outside those given parameters, the same qualities would be invalid and thus mirror a false image. A 'false image' here does not mean they are a 'lie' altogether, but simply that they do not prove valid when tested under other conditions or parameters.[/list]

Let's talk.



Disclaimers:
Please note that what is shared here do not 'conclusively' prove anything; nor does it set out to draw any conclusions that are water-tight about the existence of any phenomenon. If anything at all, it is intended to help us think carefully about our own known world, our existence and experiences in relation to existences and potentialities in possible other worlds.


_{* 'abstract quantifying' is not used here in a strictly mathematical sense.}

Oh my God. Viaro is here. One the strong hands i met in this place before it became a pit. Then i just scout and observe. This viaro and one Nuclearboy. Wow.

Welcome back man.