shaybebaby:

When you ask" who", you are already limiting the possible lines of enquiry.

Kind of like a house fire, we know it is a fire. The evidence is in the charred remains we see.

Asking "who did it" implies it was a being that did it, either consciously or unintentionally.

But that should not be first line of enquiry. Rather the question should be
"What caused this? " because this includes both the former but leaves room for a different hypothesis.
It may have been a person but it may also be faulty electrical.

Same thing about your question, we should ask "what"

butterflyl1on:
Vaxx and supersystemsnig I am in church now. When done I will attend to the thread and rub minds with supersystemsnig.

I salute you guys

Martin0:


Precisely..(Bravo)

shaybebaby:

vaxx:


I am a contingent (subject to chance)and likewise you... I could easily have failed to exist, in fact ,at one time, I did not exist, and in the future , I will cease existing, that proves I am not necessary...
.

vaxx:

If so there must have been a cause of my existence , MAY BE MY PARENTS who brought me into existence right....
.

vaxx:

Likewise the physical universe we are is also contingent.... Therefore for the physical world to also be contingent, it need an external cause just like I do..
.

vaxx:

So who is the external cause.....

.

shaybebaby:

When you ask" who", you are already limiting the possible lines of enquiry.

Kind of like a house fire, we know it is a fire. The evidence is in the charred remains we see.

Asking "who did it" implies it was a being that did it, either consciously or unintentionally.

But that should not be first line of enquiry. Rather the question should be
"What caused this? " because this includes both the former but leaves room for a different hypothesis.
It may have been a person but it may also be faulty electrical.

Same thing about your question, we should ask "what"

akintom:


Th.

tintingz:
Lol, at least he should tell us the process how he found his God if he saw him in the sky, maybe we can do same.

supersystemsnig:

Lets start from the beginning, scientific evidence proved that millions of years back, shortly before/after the world was formed, what was prevalent was just two key elements, Hydrogen 92%, and Helium 8%...But Why these two? By understanding the products of the reaction,we can illustrate the events that took place...and why i say it all began with Hydrogen, as simplistic as it may seem...but there are characteristics of this element that shares oneness with a being, which is the number 1, the number of proton, neutron,electron, the " ONE " in Hydrogen should be examined closely and from here we can continue our probe, i'll like to continue, but want us to stay on this for a while before we continue...

Now i started with hydrogen because it is extremely chemically stable, in chemistry, we'll understand that because of the relative stability of the nuclei of this element, it would require extreme force to set the nuclei apart and once this is achieved, it creates a series of spontaneous and continuous chain reactions that sets off other products that continue to react with themselves and this continuous and massive reactions was the beginning of all things...

But why Hydrogen? Hydrogen is so chemically stable as my fellow scientists will agree that breaking or infusing its sub-components to become one, requires what in science is called the energy of the sun...

It is too difficult to do that over 60 years of scientific research has not been able to fuse.. Look to the stars, planetary bodies, planetary formation, this same reactions is producing new plants, galaxies, and guess what the dominant element that has been observed in them is? Hydrogen....So, on paper research scitentist will tell you just like i am how by reacting, either breaking or combining its sub atomic parties can create atleast 80% of the elements in the world today, look for a radioactive delay illustration of Hydrogen for reference

AgentOfAllah:

I think the real ratio of Hydrogen:Helium is actually ~75%:~25%. But onto the main point, there other isotopes of hydrogen that defy your "oneness" notion; of which the most stable are deuterium (²H) and tritium (³H). The role of these isotopes may seem insignificant because they are less than 1% of existing hydrogen atoms, but note that they were pivotal in the synthesis of other elements. Simply put, no other element would exist without these other isotopes.


Hydrogen is actually the exact opposite of chemically stable, and it is not really correct that its nuclei is set apart. Note that hydrogen starts off as protium, which is a single nucleus with nothing to split into. What actually happens isn't splitting (fission) but combination (fusion) of proton and neutron. After fusion, the protium becomes deuterium and then further reaction with another protium/deutorium may form helium, Now because the energy of the product is usually lower that of the reactants, excess energy is given off, by ejecting high energy gamma ray/neutron. This high kinetic energy neutron then goes on to react with another protium, starting the cycle again. Hence the chain reaction.
I have never personally heard the term "energy of the sun", but if it means anything, it is probably just a reference to the process by which the sun radiates, which is, through hydrogen fusion.


It is not that difficult to fuse hydrogen, actually. Hydrogen fusion is exactly the operational principle of a thermonuclear bomb. It is in fact, done in labs all the time, using particle accelerators. Actually, only 25% of elements were created by hydrogen fusion. The remain 75% are ionic protiums (bachelor hydrogen atoms) desperate from electronic mates.

vaxx:
brilliant analogy....


But let me compile it...assuming, I was arrested by the security and charge to court for entering the white house without an authourization...

What question do you the think the security that got me arrested or the prosecutor who is handling my case will ask first?. Who are you or how do you get your self here? Be realistic....

Am sure your best answer will be the former...who are you may save you from how do you get here... Your identity matter... An undercover security that find himself in the white house can easily bypass the question how do you get here....
Hope am cleared..

vaxx:
I just reply akintom with the same analogy...but with different perspective.... Just look into it and bring out the flaws...


Who is a very powerful question.... It has capability to eliminate another question...

If you are in a room listening to one of your favourite radio station and the same time watching your telenovelas suddenly the radio switches off but the TV is on....


Will you ask what? who or how?


why it is logical to ask who in this scenario. ... Is that , it can save your time for who or how

You may ask who stopes the radio because the TV is on so you know it can't be a power outage or the radio can be accidentally faulty...somebody might have cause it...

The answer may be simple....the who may be as a result of an external cause which is not part of the home

akintom:


The above is simplistic to rational thinking.


he uncertain expression above, shows a mind disconnected from the first premise of intended argument.

Haven established the obvious basis of contingent existence, from where comes the uncertainty of "there must have been a cause" and "may be my parents....."?








For mutual logical argument, to hold true for two separate events, the premises must be the same.

I'm contingent because my reproductive cause, is known and compatible.

"likewise" connotes the "know", that the cause of the universe is evidential and compatible. This is silly assumption. Because such conclusion has no basis in logic.




This question can't arise, because the basis for arriving at "an external cause" has no logical or rational ingredients.

supersystemsnig:
I'm enjoying this....I need to grab some liquid while i read...

shaybebaby:

Make mine a Sangria, the sun is shining and I need something sweet and alcoholic.

vaxx:
lol let roll.....


Sure the above explanation is simple...and that is why I brought it...

Your second paragraphs....

How those the uncertainty disconnect the first premises.... Identify it bro....I Wanner see the sketch...


Third paragraph...

Yes and that is why i agree my external cause are my parent...without them I will not be here and likewise without their parent , they will not be here....just on Long chain....till the stage it will reach a line that an object will not be bound by the theory....which will mean from process to process...


Fourth paragraph

I still don't get your argument...how is the premises diffrent ....?


Fifth paragraph

You are contigent because your chances of existence is by chance...your reproductive cause might not have existed ....and if by chance , they are not in existence.... Your as a person will not be in existence...



The last two paragraph


The theory can't bound the external cause.....something must have been necessary.. The process that is necessary can share similar character with contingent being... It is impossible..


The question can really arise and that is what I did....the rational ingerident of the argument as also been apply

vaxx:


How those the uncertainty disconnect the first premises.... Identify it bro....I Wanner see the sketch...

akintom:


Your additional scene is deflective and irrelevant to the OP. You shouldn't be seen to be derailing your thread. That will amount to gunning for argument without "an" argument.

I'm AWARE of a physical universe, that i wish to know its origin. Just the same way, that you woke up to find yourself at the gate of Whitehouse. That's the take off point.

Logically, the first step in my wish to know how the physical universe came about, will be STEP-HOW and not STEP-WHO.

Therefore, the OP failed logical test.

akintom:


The muddled style of your reply, makes comprehension difficult for me. You can learn how to reply per paragraph.

akintom:


Haven seen the delivery of your baby, will you still be seen as connected with reality, if you turn to your wife and ask - did we have this baby via pregnancy?

supersystemsnig:
@Vaxx, if you tell this to spiritists,they'll disagree with you bro...You're not in existence by chance because before existence you pre-existed,a nd all the biological activity that took place with our parents was with a specific outcome, YOU !


Fifth paragraph

You are contigent because your chances of existence is by chance...your reproductive cause might not have existed ....and if by chance , they are not in existence.... Your as a person will not be in existence...

vaxx:
I am dealing with an atheist.. I know the rule with a spirit minded..

Hope you are agree with my fifth paragaph?

shaybebaby:

You have used your experience (subjective by the way) and assumed it must be a person hence asking who?

But I can tell you your experience is limited because my experience makes asking not only who but what valid.

My home has a fuse box with switches(about 10) that are connected to different parts of the house. They are all on the on position so I expect to have power everywhere. However, sometimes for instance, the lights in my living room goes off but the TV stays on. I know it's not a power cut.
But my knowledge that the switch that powers my tv may not be the one controlling the lights, I go to investigate. Usually, one of the switches has been tripped to the off position.
That answers what caused it but still leaves open the possibility of who tripped it off. But in addition, I can still ask what?
I turn the switch back to the on position, and head back to the living room- I am one spotlight down. A blown light bulb caused the fuse box to trip. It trips off because it was designed to isolate unusual electrical activities so the whole house isn't affected, rather just the area controlled by the relevant switch.

It is silly to ask who stopped the radio and leave it at that knowing very well, what is just as valid. If you are alone(this would be a fact, not open to subjectivity) would you still be asking who? Or even if you weren't and no one touched the radio, is that question valid?

vaxx:
yes my expereince is subjective...


And are you telling me my subjective is silly, is there any other way to have an experience and Is there any such thing as objective experience?

As far as I can tell, there is only subjectivity. Objectivity is a hypothetical state of knowledge that is impossible to verify.

Don’t mistake argument fact argument for objectivity. Facts are definitions. They are an apparent agreement between lots of people. But they are, in the end, tautologies.



The who touch the radio may safe you for further questions......

your analogy is faulty using the same premises ..why?

What if also you are alone...will you also ask what...

shaybebaby:

Limiting the lines of inquiry is silly.