viaro:

That's easy and presents no problem at all. Besides seeking analogies for the Creator as regards His nature and attributes, men have sought to understand issues of a *universality about the cosmos from a telluric standpoint ('telluric' - that is, as relating to matters of the earth) It is from the earth that men have sought to understand the cosmos.

But of *'universality', I have in mind the idea that it is "the quality ascribed to an entity whose existence is consistent throughout the universe". This extends beyond religion and embraces even the metaphysical, in which case we can see that men have tried to infer the attributes or properties of any entity in the universe from a small portion of the cosmos. So, the 'small portion' of the universe presents no problem at all in seeking an understanding (or inference) of that which is beyond the earth.

Excellent!

Krayola:

The highlighted part I agree with 100%. . . . The difference is that I strongly believe we know too little about the WHOLE to be able to say anything with any bit of certainty, talk less absolute certainty. My issue is not with any world-view or idea, per se. . . . It is with the certainty and authority some proclaim these things, and try to ridicule others for not subscribing.

Skepticism is good when it is not for its own sake but is used as a strategy. For example, I believe in the existence of God because I have sufficient grounds to do so. But on the question of the existence of a devil character (Lucifer), demons and witches who can fly from here to China using groundnut shells, turn into animals and back to humans, kidnap a man and convert his corpse to naira notes, I am agnostic. And I remain so while awaiting further evidence. Methinks there is some indolence inherent in atheism. Bamowolo, for instance, believes that the universe does not need to have been created. He has not ruled out the possibility that it is created either. Rather than step out of the popular religions and deploy his immense intellectual capabilities to search further, he simply takes on the label of atheism because he has not seen "conclusive evidence" of God. This is easy. Too easy.

But of *'universality', I have in mind the idea that it is "the quality ascribed to an entity whose existence is consistent throughout the universe"

you are making one assumption though, is the god that created the earth the same god that created mars, pluto, jupiter etc that's were the problem with universality comes in.

Could you point me to any link in the forum where KAG has discussed this sometime in the past? Thanks in advance.

i would try to find it as soon as possible

Bamowolo, for instance, believes that the universe does not need to have been created. He has not ruled out the possibility that it is created either. Rather than step out of the popular religions and deploy his immense intellectual capabilities to search further, he simply takes on the label of atheism because he has not seen "conclusive evidence" of God. This is easy. Too easy.

but the problem is what the hell am i searching for? Why waste time searching for knowledge about a being whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend. The nature and qualities of this supreme being has to be established first before one begins to explore it.

bawomolo:

but the problem is what the hell am i searching for?  Why waste time searching for knowledge about a being whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend.   The nature and qualities of this supreme being has to be established first before one begins to explore it.

His nature and qualities have been sufficiently established. Let me quote a statement made by Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States:
"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of the Earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator, while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order."

And this is from Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:

In much the same way as if we hear scratching within a box, we may logically infer that a creature of some sort is within the box. We may not be able to infer its nature.

But we may be able to infer that such a creature has paws with which to scratch. Or some other ability to make the scratching sound.
. . . .
We may not be ble to apprehend the quantity, what it means and its nature: but we can certainly apprehend that it is there and this we can do empirically, but better still - intuitively.

As to what to search for, let me try to offer a guideline:
(1) Though I can't tell its exact form or colour, is there really something making that scratching sound within that box?
(2) Is there really a spiritual realm beyond the physical realm?
or better still, discard these and come up with yours.

Hi bawomolo,

Your query is fascinating, beautiful - and it just structures the discussion so well for minds like mine.

bawomolo:

you are making one assumption though, is the god that created the earth the same god that created mars, pluto, jupiter etc that's were the problem with universality comes in.

True, it is one assumption (among several that may be possibly posited). I do not have the logical ground to believe the other planets were created (or brought into existence, if you may) by several other gods as distinct from the creation of our own planet, earth.

One premise for my reasoning is this: as far as creation of the universe is concerned, it may be said that 'out of the one spring forth the many'. It is not inconceivable that the various entities of the cosmos came from the unit of a creative process from one Source; for all that may be studied about the universe (within the purview of man's finite mind) are said to have emerged from a unit of basic constituents - matter, space and time.

Hence, it does not necessarily mean that different sources may have preempted the existence of the various planets - howsoever that may be conceived. For then, we may be stretching our thinking to look outside our own existence, inter alia, an existence outside our known universe, and other constituents producing a cosmos very different in nature from our understanding of matter-space-time. As far as we can tell, the other planets mentioned in yours (mars, pluto, jupiter) are within the framework of our common universe.

i would try to find it as soon as possible

That would be great, thanks.

but the problem is what the hell am i searching for? Why waste time searching for knowledge about a being whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend.

Why is it a waste of time searching for knowledge about that Being? And who says that one is not supposed to be able to comprehend the nature of that Being?

Yea, I know you're drawing from what others (eg., Deep Sight) have said, that: 'God certainly is and remains incomprehensible to every human mind', but that was an unqualified statement. Indeed, he (Deep Sight) had attempted to 'make a certain clarification here', alas! it might have proven quite an obfuscation than a clarification. More so as he adds the subscript that: 'We may not be ble to apprehend the quantity, what it means and its nature: but we can certainly apprehend that it is there and this we can do empirically, but better still - intuitively'.

Sometimes it is best to forefend such unqualified statements - avoid them altogether, as one may very easily be fazed as to their far reaching consequences. How in the world is one to understand a connection between these antipodes:

(a) 'we may not be ble to apprehend the quantity'

(b) 'but we can certainly apprehend that it is there'

This is why I quite sympathise with your remark about wasting time searching for knowledge about something 'whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend'. The antipodes simply cuts the ground from under which you are expected to stand while yet asking you to not fall into a hole.

The nature and qualities of this supreme being has to be established first before one begins to explore it.

Yes. . and not necessarily.

Yes, if we hope to derive some fruit from the discussion about any apprehension of the nature of that Being as so posited by the one who broaches it for discussion. Otherwise, it is meaningless and a thorough waste of time.

Not necessarily, because the very initial stage of any enquiry is not first to 'establish' the nature or qualities of the subject before exploration - that would be like first making a conclusion before attempting to explore anything. If we first 'establish' this and that in general enquiries, where would be the drive to then 'explore' what we already have arrived at?

I understand (perhaps) what you're trying to say. It seems that far too many things are taken for granted, where statements are made out of hand, and more statements are made to bandage the previous statements. . . etc. In which case, perhaps what you might be saying is that we first have to 'proffer' some working presuppositions (rather than 'establish' any ideas) and then examine these postulations by further 'exploring' them. This, I suppose, is the logical premise of progressing the discussion.

viaro:


Yea, I know you're drawing from what others (eg., Deep Sight) have said, that: 'God certainly is and remains incomprehensible to every human mind', but that was an unqualified statement. Indeed, he (Deep Sight) had attempted to 'make a certain clarification here', alas! it might have proven quite an obfuscation than a clarification. More so as he adds the subscript that: 'We may not be ble to apprehend the quantity, what it means and its nature: but we can certainly apprehend that it is there and this we can do empirically, but better still - intuitively'.

Sometimes it is best to forefend such unqualified statements - avoid them altogether, as one may very easily be fazed as to their far reaching consequences. How in the world is one to understand a connection between these antipodes:

(a) 'we may not be ble to apprehend the quantity'

(b) 'but we can certainly apprehend that it is there'

Viaro -

I think you have put the emphasis in the wrong places.

The emphasis should be -

(a) We may not be able to apprehend the quantity (We cannot understand or grasp its nature)

(b) But we can certainly apprehend that it is there. (We can see that it exists)

Which makes the statement clear: to wit: we cannot understand the nature of the quantity, but we can see that it exists. Such as the fact that we might not be able to determine the nature of the creature making the scratching sound in the box is, but we can infer that there is something in that box.

viaro:

In which case, perhaps what you might be saying is that we first have to 'proffer' some working presuppositions (rather than 'establish' any ideas) and then examine these postulations by further 'exploring' them. This, I suppose, is the logical premise of progressing the discussion.

Alright, if Bawo needs working presuppositions, let's try this -

Premise 1: 0 + 0 = 0: Thus no aggregation or compoundment of zeroes will every make 1.

Premise 2: Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.

Premise 3: The Universe is Something.

Premise 4: Since somethingness cannot proced from nothingness, then clearly something caused the Universe.

Premise 5: Whatever that factor is, is what i call God.

Premise 6: Given the nature, size and complexity of the Universe, one attribute i can infer for that factor is Advanced Power.

Bawo?

Hi Deep Sight,

Deep Sight:

Viaro -

I think you have put the emphasis in the wrong places.

My apologies if that's the case; I sincerely hope not, though. Yet, let me make this simple as far as I can manage:

The emphasis should be -

(a) We may not be able to apprehend the quantity (We cannot understand or grasp its nature)

(b) But we can certainly apprehend that it is there. (We can see that it exists)

I saw all that and for the longest time i was quizzed about what you possibly might mean. What I think is going on here is that you failed to communicate at the expense of equivocal statements between an undefined "quantity" and the "nature" ascribed to that 'quantity'.

I think if you carefully re-consider what is being sought after in the enquiry of several readers, no less of bawolomo's, it is not a question of the "quantity" but of its "nature". In essence, what is the "nature" of this Being of which (he supposed) he was not supposed to comprehend?

If it was rather a question of the "quantity" per se, it would seem quite odd and really out of place for the enquirer to have quizzed about adumbrating (giving an outsketch of) the nature of the said Being - to wit it would be a waste of time "searching for knowledge about a being whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend". It was not about the "quantity", lol - but rather about the "nature" of that Being.

Which makes the statement clear: to wit: we cannot understand the nature of the quantity, but we can see that it exists. Such as the fact that we might not be able to determine the nature of the creature making the scratching sound in the box is, but we can infer that there is something in that box.

Hehe, has anyone pointed out to you the inadequacy incoherence of that analogy? I mean the '0 + 0 = 0' equation and the boxed animal similitude? Okay, no one disturbed your box, and that's why I didn't want to rock the boat. But now that you mention it, I might as well be inching closer to giving it a critique that still would lead us back to square one - to wit: the whole thing was about the "nature" and not the "quantity" itself.

If one is to begin to discuss anything at all even in its incomprehensibility, would it not make sense to first give "some working presuppositions" to convey an idea of what is being spoken about? Even you yourself seem to have done that very thing by insinuating the nature of the Being of which you are trying to speak: "I can easily infer," said you, "for example the attributes of great power and intelligence withim that quantity". Did I get you wrong?

The '0 + 0 = 0' equation may well be saying the same thing, and that was what one may suppose bawolomo drew from, and consequently raised the query about the nature of a Being that he was not supposed to comprehend.

Be that as it may, but is this Being (this 'God' we talk about in common parlance) to be understood at first instance as a "quantity"? I think such ideologies is tends to vagueness and leaves you readers more perplexed than at the beginning. Let me again draw upon your quote:

_____________________________________________________________

This is only a crude example, but i simply mean to say that a full absorbtion
of the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 will settle the question that nothing could exist if
there was not on the left side of the equation (i.e outside of space & time)
a permanent self existent quantity which i call God. Now, from what i see
within the universe, i can also infer a few of his/her/ its attributes - in much
the same way as we inferred that the creature in the box had the abvility
to scratch things. I can easily infer, for example the attributes of great power
and intelligence withim that quantity on the left side of my equation.
_____________________________________________________________
[from post #29 - yours]

Here is the big issue: it seems you would like your readers to just assume that what you assert is "just so" - no questions asked, as we're all supposed to nod approvingly. Thus, it seems we're just to admit to the "quantity" you define as 'God' and take your statement about apprehending its being there quite empirically (or 'better still - intuitively').

But here: how do you determine to proceed on this course on empirical grounds where you already assumed that the nature of this 'quantity' cannot be apprehended (although yet certainly apprehended that "it" is there)? In simple terms: what is your empirical deduction(s) for the existence of this 'quantity' we may not apprehend?

Alright, if Bawo needs working presuppositions, let's try this -

Premise 1: 0 + 0 = 0: Thus no aggregation or compoundment of zeroes will every make 1.

Okay - I leave that proposal to Bawo.

Premise 2: Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.

Hehe - philosophers can quite easily trash that and turn it on its head. I could do that, if Bawo permits me.

Premise 3: The Universe is Something.

Okay.

Premise 4: Since somethingness cannot proced from nothingness, then clearly something caused the Universe.

Ever heard of ex nihilo - 'from or out of nothing'? Huh?
Premises #2 and #4 cannot pass so easily, you know?

Premise 5: Whatever that factor is, is what i call God.

And thus the same 'God' is defined as a 'quantity'? I just want you to get steady here, because the careless use of these inexcusable adjuncts (accessory, auxiliaries; supplements,) will just not cut it for you.

If 'God' is a 'quantity', philosophically that 'quantity' is also caused and not in itself uncaused! We know of many 'quantities' whose 'nature' are yet unclarified even though their existences are inferred from their characteristics - example: dark energy and dark matter. Yet, these 'quantities' do not in any way cause things to begin to exist, even though they have effects on other entities in existence.

It is for this reason that I'd be asking that you approach your subject carefully and qualify your statements (which I hinted to bawo earlier that he might have drawn from one of your unqualified assumptions/statements).

Premise 6: Given the nature, size and complexity of the Universe, one attribute i can infer for that factor is Advanced Power.

How do you come to that premise - empirically, that is? Just how? You only "inferred" this factor/premise and yet talked about "advanced power" - would that be outside or within the nature which you had stated "We cannot understand or grasp its nature"?

Amico mio, please help clarify these issues and stand steady. Can we or can we not apprehend the 'nature' of your 'quantity'? If not, then how come you're generously spalshing attributes upon that 'quantity' and yet shying away from committing to any statement you have made about not apprehending its nature?

Bawo?

Bawo please appear! It's possible viaro is not picking up the frequency wave here. Radio over.

viaro:


I think if you carefully re-consider what is being sought after in the enquiry of several readers, no less of bawolomo's, it is not a question of the "quantity" but of its "nature". In essence, what is the "nature" of this Being of which (he supposed) he was not supposed to comprehend?

If it was rather a question of the "quantity" per se, it would seem quite odd and really out of place for the enquirer to have quizzed about adumbrating (giving an outsketch of) the nature of the said Being - to wit it would be a waste of time "searching for knowledge about a being whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend". It was not about the "quantity", lol - but rather about the "nature" of that Being.

I should make clear that Bawo calls himself an atheist. As you well know, atheism connotes a denial of the existence of God. Atheism is not, strictly speaking, a dialogue about the attributes of God. Whatever attributes we may suppose, atheism altogether denies that God EXISTS.

Thus i think you have mis-apprehended the issue: I seek to negate atheistic thought by proving the EXISTENCE of God - not the nature of God.

It will thus be sufficient for me if i can show that something exists which caused the universe - i needn't go further to talk about that thing being kind or loving or merciful.

Capisce?

viaro:


Be that as it may, but is this Being (this 'God' we talk about in common parlance) to be understood at first instance as a "quantity"? I think such ideologies is tends to vagueness and leaves you readers more perplexed than at the beginning.

. . . . . .  .

And thus the same 'God' is defined as a 'quantity'? I just want you to get steady here, because the careless use of these inexcusable adjuncts (accessory, auxiliaries; supplements,) will just not cut it for you.

If 'God' is a 'quantity', philosophically that 'quantity' is also caused and not in itself uncaused! We know of many 'quantities' whose 'nature' are yet unclarified even though their existences are inferred from their characteristics - example: dark energy and dark matter. Yet, these 'quantities' do not in any way cause things to begin to exist, even though they have effects on other entities in existence.

You dwell far too much on words. I use the word "quantity" exactly to hamstring the atheist who may challenge any other word i use, such as "he" or "she". Quantity here simply means anything that exists, or is being said to exist. I may also say "Factor."

Quote
Premise 2: Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.

Hehe - philosophers can quite easily trash that and turn it on its head. I could do that, if Bawo permits me.

I postively challenge you to do this.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Self Existent things (such as infinite time) do not require a cause.

Ready to go?

How do you come to that premise - empirically, that is? Just how? You only "inferred" this factor/premise and yet talked about "advanced power" -

Observation: The Pyramids in Giza are large and complex. Deduction: Great skill and man power was involved in their construction. Is the inference now clear? I cannot see what quarrel you could have with that reasoning.

would that be outside or within the nature which you had stated "We cannot understand or grasp its nature"?

Are you suggesting to me that once you observe that a laptop computer can show pictures, you have grasped its entire nature? ? ? ?

Oh there! So seeing one attribute of an entity by no means indicates that we can grasp its compound nature.

All clear? ? ?

_{P.S: You don't have to explain in brackets the meanings of each word that you use. That supposes that your readers are illiterate, or semi-literate only?}

Deep Sight:

I should make clear that Bawo calls himself an atheist. As you well know, atheism connotes a denial of the existence of God. Atheism is not, strictly speaking, a dialogue about the attributes of God. Whatever attributes we may suppose, atheism altogether denies that God EXISTS.

I understand what atheism in its varied shades mean. You may not have noticed that one of the first things an atheist asks you to do is define the words you use when speaking about God - any 'God'. If you're going to have any meaningful dialogue with any atheistically inclined mind, you would find that words are meaningless and thus make your communication meaningless where you make assumptions that are far too stretched merely on assumptions. Ask any reasoned atheist and they will yet tell you the same thing.

Thus i think you have mis-apprehended the issue: I seek to negate atheistic thought by proving the EXISTENCE of God - not the nature of God.

I wasn't holding brief or playing devil's advocate for atheism; rather, my point was that you had clearly not communicated to your atheist audience by conflating between nature and quantity.

It will thus be sufficient for me if i can show that something exists which caused the universe - i needn't go further to talk about that thing being kind or loving or merciful.

No, but you could at the same time shy away from the 'nature' while yet talking about said nature of the quantity? No?

Capisce?

Sì, capisco.

You dwell far too much on words. I use the word "quantity" exactly to hamstring the atheist who may challenge any other word i use, such as "he" or "she". Quantity here simply means anything that exists, or is being said to exist. I may also say "Factor."

Pardon me - and excuse my highlighting the words you used. It just wouldn't make any sense to speak unclearly in reference to God as a quantity - doing so puts that Being within the things caused and not that which is uncaused.

I postively challenge you to do this.

I have: in reference to ex nihilo.

Premise 2:
Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.
this is similar to "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes from nothing )

Ex nihilo:
'creatio ex nihilo', meaning "creation out of nothing"
The God who created all things did so ex nihilo - created all things out of nothing.
~ this is simply saying that something came out of nothing: ex nihilo.

Ex nihilo is a philosophical proposition as much as it is carried in theological ideologies. That is why when you posit a 'god' that is a 'quantity', you have buried it once and for all and made "it" a caused being, not an UNCAUSED being. Argue that I dwell too much on words - and your arguments would be meaningless until you aim to be clear when you communicate your ideas.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

That cause is not a 'quantity' as you described.

Self Existent things (such as infinite time) do not require a cause.

And how do you empirically determine that time is eternal and not created?

Ready to go?

If you have the philosophical muscle, I'm game.

Observation: The Pyramids in Giza are large and complex. Deduction: Great skill and man power was involved in their construction. Is the inference now clear? I cannot see what quarrel you could have with that reasoning.

I don't have any quarrel; and have you not adduced some attribute of the nature of this 'man'? What would be considered as your 'great skill and man power' - just teasing and nothing more, eh?

Are you suggesting to me that once you observe that a laptop computer can show pictures, you have grasped its entire nature? ? ? ?

No; but I am making a clear case that you have made zero the nature of the quantity so that nothing is left to the enquirer to even begin to understand the slightest point of your discourses. If you don't want anyone to know anything about the nature of the said 'quantity' you espouse, you ought to say nothing about its 'attributes of great power and intelligence' - that would be gulling your audience and expecting them to nod sheepishly.

Oh there! So seeing one attribute of an entity by no means indicates that we can grasp its compound nature.

I see here a confirmation of my earlier inference: inexcusable adjuncts (accessory, auxiliaries; supplements). You said nothing about a "compound" nature - but simply said: "We cannot understand or grasp its nature". Thus I asked: 'You only "inferred" this factor/premise and yet talked about "advanced power" - would that be outside or within the nature which you had stated "We cannot understand or grasp its nature"?

All clear? ? ?

_{P.S: You don't have to explain in brackets the meanings of each word that you use. That supposes that your readers are illiterate, or semi-literate only?}

The explanation of my terms was not meant to convey to my readers that they hardly went to school - not at all. I wanted to be clear in what context they are used in my posts, seeing that one point at which some Nairalanders hold me to my ears is that my posts are either wordy or the diction is somewhere lost. So, okay I heed your call.

Why is it a waste of time searching for knowledge about that Being? And who says that one is not supposed to be able to comprehend the nature of that Being?

ha that's the million dollar question. Can man with its limitations comprehend the nature of this being.

Yes, if we hope to derive some fruit from the discussion about any apprehension of the nature of that Being as so posited by the one who broaches it for discussion. Otherwise, it is meaningless and a thorough waste of time.

true, so what qualities do you think God has. Omnipresence, Omnipotence? I would like to see if you guys agree on the qualities of God.

I understand (perhaps) what you're trying to say. It seems that far too many things are taken for granted,

Yup, you guys have to lay a ground framework for what constitutes a God. What qualities does it have and how does it operate.

viaro:


Pardon me - and excuse my highlighting the words you used. It just wouldn't make any sense to speak unclearly in reference to God as a quantity - doing so puts that Being within the things caused and not that which is uncaused.

. . . . . . .

That is why when you posit a 'god' that is a 'quantity', you have buried it once and for all and made "it" a caused being, not an UNCAUSED being. Argue that I dwell too much on words - and your arguments would be meaningless until you aim to be clear when you communicate your ideas.

. . . . . . .

That cause is not a 'quantity' as you described.
I have: in reference to ex nihilo

.

Gosh, you do quibble about words. Let's cut to the chase: for your sake i herewith abandon the word "quantity." Let's say perhaps "Factor" as i indicated above. Happy now? Geez weez!

Premise 2:
Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.
this is similar to "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes from nothing )

Ex nihilo:
'creatio ex nihilo', meaning "creation out of nothing"
The God who created all things did so ex nihilo - created all things out of nothing.
~ this is simply saying that something came out of nothing: ex nihilo.


. . . . . Ex nihilo is a philosophical proposition as much as it is carried in theological ideologies.

I positively deny that it can be said that God created all things or anything[b] out of nothing. [/b]

I also positively assert that nothingness is itself inherently a non-existent quantity (oops, that word again!) - ok - non existent factor. In other words - there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist, and never has. This can be philosophically and mathematically inferred.

Might i state as an aside that (and please this is delicate so don't start hair-splitting the words, human language being a limited tool) - What would have been  nothingness, is actually the self-existent oneness of infinity, which is God.

Someone captured this excellently in another thread, when he wrote -

AlaniTiógo:

In my grope around these issues, I perceive God to be beyond perfection itself. Like Pastor said, he is ineffable. And Deepsight, please consider this: perfection is the tipping point to nothingness. Infinity, eternity, omnipotence- these are terms used in understanding God.

Rather than creation out of nothingness (which does not and has never existed), God created all things from the radiation of his divine and infinite substance. That is not "nothing." Every second, literarily, God is spawning zillions of universes and existences way beyond our imagination. This continues ceaselessly, and can be philosophically inferred. I will come back to this later if you are interested.

And how do you empirically determine that time is eternal and not created?

Note that i qualified my statement. I stated that infinite time is self existent and not created.

Deep Sight:

Gosh, you do quibble about words.

I don't. Actually your careless equivocation is tending to a bore, and that is one thing I would not wish for you so that your readers would not have to often scratch their heads about the many things you state.

Let's cut to the chase: for your sake i herewith abandon the word "quantity." Let's say perhaps "Factor" as i indicated above. Happy now? Geez weez!

As you may, lol.

I positively deny that it can be said that God created all things or anything[b] out of nothing. [/b]

Hehe. .  so please tell me: from what would you suppose God created anything at all?

I also positively assert that nothingness is itself inherently a non-existent quantity (oops, that word again!) - ok - non existent factor. In other words - there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist, and never has.

Em, sir. . I would file that away for the moment and take it up as exhibit A at the appropriate time.

This can be philosophically and mathematically inferred.

Apart from your '0 + 0 = 0' equation, please try something else and let's see how far you can handle that.

Might i state as an aside that (and please this is delicate so don't start hair-splitting the words, human language being a limited tool) - What would have been  nothingness, is actually the self-existent oneness of infinity, which is God.

I'm not going to split hairs on that excuse up there. If you don't wish to communicate, it were better that you avoid such delicate quibbles. It just makes me wonder: if there is nothing like 'nothingness' (does not exist and never has), what is your point in attempting to make this same never-existing 'nothingness' into a 'God' all of a sudden?

Rather than creation out of nothingness (which does not and has never existed), God created all things from the radiation of his divine and infinite substance. That is not "nothing."

How do you know this? Is that another one of your "just-say-so" and others are to just nod sheepishly?

Every second, literarily, God is spawning zillions of universes and existences way beyond our imagination. This continues ceaselessly, and can be philosophically inferred. I will come back to this later if you are interested.

I am actually interested - please show me.

Note that i qualified my statement. I stated that infinite time is self existent and not created.

I saw all that - [url=https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-359542.0.html#msg5027684[/color]]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-359542.0.html#msg5027684[/url]. I was asking about time, because you cannot just set it aside as if it is not part of the very cosmos we experience.

bawomolo:

ha that's the million dollar question. Can man with its limitations comprehend the nature of this being.

true, so what qualities do you think God has. Omnipresence, Omnipotence? I would like to see if you guys agree on the qualities of God.

Yup, you guys have to lay a ground framework for what constitutes a God. What qualities does it have and how does it operate.

Obviously, from my few posts rubbing minds with Deep Sight here, you can see we're not quite on the same identity of the Being called 'God'. I don't intend to loan him any ground in this thread to slip away with his assertions anyhow, since he assumes that what is not tessellating with his deism is "most irrational and inane". Be it so: 'God’s Existence: The Deist Perspective' - we're all ears.

Viaro,  U are sayin some of the stuff I've been trying to get across to señor "oneness of infinity" for a while. Although my limited vocabulary no dey gree me fire grammar like u. But bottom line is that he claims not to know the nature of this OoI, but then calls it intelligent, timeless, orishirishi fantastic things, :: and then suggests those that don't see this as obvious when they see the beautiful butterflies and big big yanshes at the nite club are deluded and irrationanal.

Now If every chic I met had studendous booty, I'll bow to this your OoI. But as long as I dey see all these oyinbo and chinko babes wey no get bakassi ( some naija babes sef no get ), this OoI dude ain't all dat. 

^^^hehehe. . . Krayo, it is not so much that amico mio is not saying anything. More than that, we want to really know what he is saying. Aside from the idea that a lot of things are being spun here, methinks it's just about time for us to get a bit serious and know where exactly what we intend to convey - or it would be even more disastrous in future when engaging enquirers' thoughts on this same subject.

Viaro, Krayola - i really would have thought it was simple enough to see that even if something remains a mystery, a few things about it may be understood. I gave the example of a scratching sound in a box. That we could infer that a creature was there. Or even that it has claws with which to scratch. But we may not be able to understand exactly what creature it is.

Even if that's not a perfect example then anyhow with all mysteries it's still the same. If a diamond ring goes missing from a safe we may be able to state with certainty that it's been moved away by a living person or creature. We may even be able to infer about what time it was moved, etc. This does not mean that we will solve the mystery.

Thus i cannot see how the fact that i insist that God's nature cannot be understood even while inferring a few parts of that nature should be a problem.

You guys really are adopting a frustrating black-and-white stand: namely that once something is a mystery then absolutely nothing about it can be known or inferred.

You both know that's a cop out and makes no sense at all. You Viaro, are aware that the Trinity, for instance, is categorized a sacred mystery and yet there are  many parts of it that you try to explain, infer or understand.

If you guys insist on this approach, i may not be able to continue.

Regards.

Deep Sight my pal, as you can see in my reply to Krayo, it is not as if we're out to make you feel bad. To lose such a warm friendship would indeed make us (or to speak for myself) feel bad. .  really bad. But in reply to yours, perhaps you might be able to come round seeing the point we've been trying to pass along for your consideration.

Deep Sight:

Viaro, Krayola - i rally would have thought it was simple enough to see that even if something remains a mystery, a few things about it may be understood. I gave the example of a scratching sound in a box. That we could infer that a creature was there. Or even that it has claws with which to scratch. But we may not be able to understand what creature it is.

That is precisely my point, and dare I risk saying that in many things we've been speaking the same lingo but differing over meanings and contexts in other matters. I have no qualms at all with your analogies or presentations on this subject; but pardon my inability to resist the urge to hold you to account when making statements that tend to yield far too much ground to the atheistically inclined mind that you're trying to reach. To wit: you should be resolute and clear when you say anything in this wise, even at the cost of being misunderstood for a while.

An example is such that there's no need for you to mellow so much to the extent of qualifying 'God' as a quantity, factor, etc - or an "it". M-a-n, this is so serious that if it escapes your notice it would be self-defeating before your next post. The point is that such qualifiers only reduce this 'God'-Being to a point as to give ground for the notion that it is a caused being rather than make your point that He is UNCAUSED. Haven't you noticed yet that this is the reason why respondents like bawolomo have been asking questions about this Being, like:

           'How did this "force" become God?'  . . . .  [post #2]

           'What attributes can you infer by the way.'
           'do you believe this creator is an interventionist one?'  . . . .  [post #30]

Edit:
Even when naijababe had made the same compromising mistake of thinking that anyone can "prefer call it something else", banom was astute to warn that such was "a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him"; particularly on the question of something coming out of nothing. I like the very fine point he made, that:

'If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task,
because you have to point out how God himself came into existence,
it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify
him from being a God, (the uncaused cause that caused everything to come
into existence)" ~ post #16.

What do these portray? Simple: the very thing I've been trying to say, which no less Krayola (as an agnostic) has been trying to point out as well - that there out to be some sort of presuppositions that would help us begin to discuss the subject about the identity of this 'God-Being'. If we reduce this Being to such compromised utilities as an "it", we bury the "it" and take away anything about His Deity/divinity from the equation.

Consistency is the key here; because if someone else other than either viaro or Krayola determines to take you up philosophically on these issues, nothing would be left of your arguments at the end of the day.

Thus i cannot see how the fact that i insist that God's nature cannot be understood even while inferring a few parts of that nature should be a problem.

I hope the above sheds light on where I'm coming from. I could expatiate if need be.

You guys really are adopting a frustrating black-and-white stand: namely that once something is a mystery then absolutely nothing about it can be known or inferred.

This is not even close to understanding your readers before inferring this narrow line about them. It is not the mystery we question, but your vacillations about making a clear pointer in what you're saying. In simple English: Deep Sight, there are far too many holes in your conjectures! In my previous replies to yours, I have acknowledged the plain fact that some things could clearly be inferred -

       If one is to begin to discuss anything at all even in its incomprehensibility,
       would it not make sense to first give "some working presuppositions"
       to convey an idea of what is being spoken about? Even you yourself seem
       to have done that very thing by insinuating the nature of the Being of
       which you are trying to speak: "I can easily infer," said you, "for example
       the attributes of great power and intelligence withim that quantity".
       Did I get you wrong?

You should see that I did not infer that absolutely nothing could be known about God of Whom we speak.

You both know that's a cop out and makes no sense at all.

Which same you have missed the point in ours.

If you insist on that, i may not be able to continue.

I for one did not insist on what you wrongly inferred; and there are several questions left unanswered as yet in yours. Cheers.

viaro:


Even when naijababe had made the same compromising mistake of thinking that anyone can "prefer call it something else", banom was astute to warn that such was "a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him"; particularly on the question of something coming out of nothing. I like the very fine point he made, that:

'If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task,
because you have to point out how God himself came into existence,
it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify
him from being a God, (the uncaused cause that caused everything to come
into existence)" ~ post #16.

I cannot see what was astute as God is not said to begin to exist. He is said to have always existed being self-existent, such as infinite time or infinite space.

I retire for today.

I, too, will retire soon for the night.

Deep Sight:

I cannot see what was astute as God is not said to begin to exist. He is said to have always existed being self-existent.

Here: 'banom was astute to warn that such was "a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him"'. He did not argue that God began to exist; but that if deists are not careful how they approach their subject, they end up compounding their task.

viaro:

He did not argue that God began to exist

He did -

'If you say some thing can not come out of nothing, you compound your task,
because you have to point out how God himself came into existence

Thereby implying that at some point God must have "come into existence"

Note the words in the first line above - "come out of". . .(highlighted). . . God is not said to "come out of" anything, being self-existent, thus leaving Naijbabe's statement intact.

Gnite.

Deep Sight:

He did -

Thereby implying that at some point God must have "come into existence"

Note the words in the first line above - "come out of". . .(highlighted). . . God is not said to "come out of" anything, being self-existent, thus leaving Naijbabe's statement intact.

Not so fast, pal. Naijababe's statement does not remain intact as such, since it appears that you might have taken banom's statement out of context. I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think that banom was arguing that God began to exist at some point, and the first thing I would like to do is quote him from this link in post #16:

---

[list]Edit:
Before that, let's clear out of the way the issue of what exactly banom was replying to about something coming out of nothing:

naijababe:

@ Bawolomo
Let me attempt to answer some of your questions to the best of my abilitiyIt seems to me that the problem here for you is the word "God" , the point is something cannot come out of nothing. If you prefer call it something else.

To that, banom replied:

banom:

. . If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task , because you have to point out how God himself came into existence, it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify him from being a God, ( the uncaused cause that caused everything to come into existence).

The meaning of, or implication in, the deist's idea that something cannot come out of nothing is such that an atheist might argue that "God also came out of something". . that is the implication for the atheist (which is why, as you may have noticed, the atheist is asking today: 'who created the Creator'?). What banom did was show the implication of what such a deist's argument of "some thing can not come out nothing" could mean to the atheist; and as such, banom argued that it would "automatically disqualify him from being a God".
[/list]

---

Now, to the point that banom may not seem to have argued for the notion that God "began" to exist at some point, I quote his post from #16 the previous page:

banom:
This is a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him, If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task , because you have to point out how God himself came into existence, it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify him from being a God, ( the uncaused cause that caused everything to come into existence). the truth is that God can never be proven with mere rational argument and logic. he is supernatural and consequently beyond our natural capacity of comprehension.

I think it should be clear that banom was not trying to make a case for the idea that God began to exist - you had misread him by supposing he was trying to argue such, which was why you replied thus in post #17:

That's quite true Banom - save that God is not said to ever begin to exist. It is right to say that whatever begins to exist requires a cause, but things that have always existed are self-existent and do not require a cause. As i said before, God is the compound of all self-existent laws. Accordingly he needs no creative agent to bring him into existence.

But back now to banom's - one wonders why he would make clear two pivotal points in his quote:

             (a)  "it means God also came out of something
                    which will automatically disqualify him from being a God"

             (b)  "God, (the uncaused cause that caused everything
                     to come into existence)"

In (a) above, banom seemed to have argued that the idea that God also came out of something would "automatically disqualify him from being a God" - because such an idea supposes that God began to exist at some point, which is not his argument. If God began to exist, then that idea ipso facto quite simply "automatically disqualifies" Him from being 'God'.

In (b) as well, the fact that banom may not have argued that God began to exist at some point is clear from what he stated in parenthesis immediately after mentioning 'God'. Said he: "God, (the uncaused cause that caused everything to come into existence)" - how clearer could language be? Could an "UNCAUSED" Being be defined as one that 'began' to exist? Is it not clear that banom would not be arguing for a 'God' that began to exist if he made clear in parenthesis that 'God' of whom he spoke was UNCAUSED?

Now, if banom had not made clear his point, I might see the point in your misreading him. But as far as he was clear, it does not make any sense to have sliced his point out of context to make him say what he quite clearly was not saying at all.

'Nite-nite, later in da day!

Deep Sight:

I cannot see what was astute as God is not said to begin to exist. He is said to have always existed being self-existent, such as infinite time or infinite space.

I retire for today.

and how do you know this? One of your mathematical proofs again?

Viaro: It seems that you are not able to wrap your head around the words "come out of" and what they imply or connote as per the exhange between naijababe and banom. I can't really help further, save to state that you should reflect on the statement again: "something cannot come out of nothing." This statement clearly excludes self existent things: this is obvious on the face of the words alone - read the sentence again carefully if that glaring fact elludes you,

Time does not "come out of" anything. Nor do numbers. Nor does eternity. As such, viewing God within that prism given the premise set out by Naijababe simply amounts to jumping off a cliff. And Banom presupposed that in constructing his statement. He missed the vital fact that the premise does not refer to self existent things, since it clearly talks about things that have a beginning in saying - "come out of." But i sense you may not, nay, will chose not to see the clear point. So let's leave it and look to other things.

Bawo - Is there anything that you think does not require a cause? I recall you saying that the singularity from which the expansion referred to as the big bang proceeded could perhaps have always existed. Namely that it did not necessarily require a cause. How is that so: and could i not appropriate such eternity in the past to self existent things such as infinite time, and by extrension to that which i call the compound of all self-existent laws - God?

Even if we accept your premises as true, your argument still has more holes as a basket.

Why is the possibility of an infinite regression of movers unacceptable to u?

Why is the possibility of a universe that has always existed and was never created unacceptable to you?

How do u go from a prime mover u know nothing about. to an intelligent one that designed with "purpose"?

When u answer these and we show you the problems with your arguments, why do u insist we just can't "wrap our heads" around it?

I really don't care about all these technicalities with semantics and all that . . . I just want you to make sense. If you did, I'd admit it. But the arguments you make just don't add up IMO. Its not about being stubborn . . . when your retort is simply that we disagree because we don't understand, u're pretty much calling us dumb because we refuse to accept stuff that just doesn't add up to us.

If only u acknowledged that our objections are valid, and then we can try to work around them. . . but u keep dismissing them

^^^Krayola, I can't improve on your post. Deep Sight just seems not to get anything we're saying at all. How else can we help our dear friend, hmm?

@Deep Sight,

Deep Sight:

Viaro: It seems that you are not able to wrap your head around the words "come out of" and what they imply or connote as per the exhange between naijababe and banom. I can't really help further, save to state that you should reflect on the statement again: "something cannot come out of nothing." This statement clearly excludes self existent things: this is obvious on the face of the words alone - read the sentence again carefully if that glaring fact elludes you,

Nothing here between naijababe's and banom's posts elude me; and I've tried somewhat to show that it does not seem that the latter was making a case for a 'god' that began to exist at some point. If he did, what was the sense in his intoning that 'God' is the UNCAUSED Cause that caused everything to come into existence? Why would he have said that, if he meant that God began at some point to exist like everything else, huh?

However, the question of "something coming out of nothing" is one that I'd lightly touched upon, viz, 'ex nihilo'. I know how difficult that might sound to you; but then you either have to explicate how creation came into existence from "something" already existing, or reflect the import in banom's take that such an idea would automatically disqualify your talk about an 'UNcaused' God.

Time does not "come out of" anything. Nor do numbers. Nor does eternity. As such, viewing God within that prism given the premise set out by Naijababe simply amounts to jumping off a cliff. And Banom presupposed that in constructing his statement. He missed the vital fact that the premise does not refer to self existent things, since it clearly talks about things that have a beginning in saying - "come out of." But i sense you may not, nay, will chose not to see the clear point. So let's leave it and look to other things.

As you may, I shall leave that and look at some other issues - else that is something I would have again highlighted to show the holes in them. As a subscript, please note that numbers are not self-existent - they are part of the invented tools that man employs in researches. Once you miss that, you miss everything, and then you can choose to open a thread to discuss that - or let's take up one that is already available but was not developed (probably because not many people had anything to say in that thread):

        Between Law And Mathematics by solosqr

Thirsty enough? Go there and viaro will meet you amicably.

viaro:


As a subscript, please note that numbers are not self-existent - they are part of the invented tools that man employs in researches. Once you miss that, you miss everything. . .

Viaro, deep inside I knew you would fall into this one. I just sensed that the self-existent nature of numbers is something you would not yet have apprehended or grasped.

This gives me great despair, because if you have not grasped this very simple step, it is no wonder that the ladder of esoteric abstract reasoning I keep trying to build seems like gibberish to you.

I cannot begin to explain what I have already explained before, so I’ll just let you review past posts on the nature of numbers.

This is from me to Krayola in one of the threads discussing God in empirical terms -

Would the fact that we were not around to count the earth change the fact that it was 1 (ONE) Earth, and not, for instance 2? Would that have changed the amount of stars in the milky way galaxy? Regardless of whether humans ever came around or not, there would still have remained a certain number of planets around the sun. Indeed, there would still be whatever number of galaxies in the universe - whether human arrived to articulate it or not. Therefore NO, Krayola, i hope you see now that numbers are not, and could never, be contingent on the human mind. We only ascribe names to already existing quantities - that much should be clear from the above analogies.

What you are doing amounts to stating that since we named animals, then animals are a construct of the human mind only. No - there were already eight moons around Jupiter, before we came and had to express that already existing number in our human words. Hope you are clear on this.

Viaro I hope you will dare to suggest that if humanity became extinct, there would be no specific amount of moons around Jupiter any more, until another set of humans arrive to count them.

Numbers are intangible: they are NOT a construct of the human mind: the human mind gave appellations to already existing quantities, in order to apprehend and rationalize such quantities.

Prizm had tried to clarify this for Krayola -

Prizm:


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

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

Still think Numbers are not self existent?

For the record. prism didnt "clarify" jackshit for Krayola. He just stated his opinion which i disagreed with. That argument he made is just one philosophical approach amongst others, and these thing have been debated for centuries. there are no right or wrong answers to these things. So when people come around claiming to have the "correct" answers to these things, they lose all credibility, to me. they just sound like all these pastors that go around claiming to have the "correct" interpretation of God. These are ideas that we can debate. . . but there is nothing anyone can say to prove that numbers have an actual existence separate from what we use them for.

U have been accused of being very dogmatic in the way u present your views, deepsight. i think u have to be that way since u are a lawyer, but it is IMO, not the way to carry on a debate. Just my opinion though.

^^^ Gosh! So you still insist that there was no specific quantity of moons around Jupiter until mankind arrived to count them?

You still refuse to see that quantities exist, and that man merely created numeric figures to describe those already existing quantities?

This really beats me, you know.

Ah, it shouldn't - i recall you were the same person who told me that a yellow dress would have no hue if man did not create the word "yellow."

Frankly i am astounded that you cannot see that man may give names to quantities, and that does not mean he created such quantities.

I ask you again: Did man create the colour "yellow?"

Because i would have thought he only created a name for an already existing hue? ? ? ? ? ?

Come on!

@Deep Sight,

Thank you for trying up until now to amicably share the things you're passionate about. The only problem is that your readers (including viaro) find quite a load in them that are indeep abstract but not necessarily[i] practical[/i].

As regards numbers, again yours is appreciated - well done, you have given it a good try. Unfortunately, that still is not sturdy enough to carry it through. The thing is that numbers are not self-existent; and if you may, we could go to the thread recommended earlier (Between Law and Mathematics) and sort this out while we seep the local brew of your choice - I'll pay for drinks.

Deep Sight:

Still think Numbers are not self existent?

No, I don't think they are.

Viaro - just be bold and take on the challenge below:

Viaro I hope you will dare to suggest that if humanity became extinct, there would be no specific amount of moons around Jupiter any more, until another set of humans arrive to count them.

If you can confidently state that there was not a specific quantity of moons around Jupiter before mankind came along, we will start the king of all crackdowns right here.

State it.

The reason why I allowed you to be happy with your abstractions is because I'm not given to such cocktails. There are a few questions to be sorted out before you hope to lead me in the stupor of that 'challenge' -

* How exactly is a number self-existent?

* What does it do in itself as affecting excistence?

* How is existence dependent on number/numbers?

* What is 'number' - and which 'number' are you talking about?

* How is this 'number' different from the numbers used in science and philosophy?

* how do you determine mathematically that 'Number' is self-existent?

Let me understand you first in these matters and then we can proceed from there.

Deep Sight:



If you can confidently state that there was not a specific quantity of moons around Jupiter before mankind came along, we will start the king of all crackdowns right here.

There was a specific number of MOONS. Without the moons, tho, the numbers, IMO, ain't shite!! U dig?!