₦airaland Forum

ooman: Saying energy has consciousness is same as saying energy is God. You need to understand the chemical and the nuclear nature of energy to understand how it reacted to form everything we see.

If by God you mean what created the universe and everything in it and controls the universe and so on, then yes, I'm saying energy is God. I believe the string theory which basically says that all matter broken down to its smallest has a string of energy vibrating in a particular way.
Well if you don't agree with the string theory you would agree that light is energy and light certainly behaves conscious. If you can read about the double slit experiment. A link to the simplest explanation is provided.

http://www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/quantum.html

ooman: I dont really understand you. Are u saying u think that energy has consciousness or not because am going to ask you, does electricity have consciousness, what about sound, what about heat?

I think that all energy has consciousness. It might be aware of the universe in a different dimension from ours but yes. I think all energy has consciousness

Perspective

Reyginus: Lolol. Just say this guy get learning mind unlike greatg. But me sef don't dey tire for the tin o.

I was actually thinking the same thing about you guys but let's not judge based on my sentiments alone. What exactly are you teaching that greatgenius is refusing to learn? All you are doing is trying to pick apart what greatgenius is trying to teach without even stopping to consider if you can learn anything from it and yet you still claim someone has an unlearning mind. How's that for your logic?

Goshen360: New Living Translation (©2007)
Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed. Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. [size=15pt]And now[/size] that the way of faith has come, [size=15pt]we no longer need the law as our guardian.[/size] Galatians 3:23-25

During the time of the law, didn't the people under the law have faith in God? If they didn't would they even care for "God's laws"? Is it that the faith in God needed to be transferred to faith in Jesus?

ooman: 6. Nothing can exist forever in the same state except energy, so there is no eternity because energy does not have consciousness.

Ooman i really respect your logic but I beg to respectfully differ on this point. Energy does have a consciousness

Lol. nosa_gold is getting creamed by ooman. I must confess that I am however disappointed that when nosa_gold gives a poor logical statement He tries to deviate into other unimportant matters.
But let me tell you what God really is and how everything came to be. It was all done by invisible pink unicorns in the sky. I and these invisible pink unicorns have a good relationship and I am the only one that is going to live in their paradise while the rest of you will be eternally punished.
Now give me any evidence that invisible pink unicorns don't exist and I will prove you wrong

Wow. You just had to go and blow my mind. This puts a new spin and perspective on the bible. Things surely got misunderstood

greatgenius: 1. Good.. now can you explicate on how God could be both the beginning and end? I want clarification because I want to make sure you haven't accepted that truth as gospel but know the reason why he is both the beginning and end ... Because it seems to agree to that notion yet can't seem to understand how he is both the light and darkness..

2..Of course the bible is not going to tell you outright .. the bible was put together to control but it always gives you clues...

YHWH is the creator of this planets personal name and its stands for HNON(all elements.. the corresponding letters in Hebrew are Yod, Hey, Vav, and Hey, )... and this name is written in and part of your DNA ...
DNA elements of hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon corresponds to the Hebrew letters of Yod, Heh, Wav, Gimel (YHWG). Carbon is what makes us physical because it is the element of dust. When carbon is replaced with nitrogen, it becomes YHWH. Hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen are all colorless and odorless gasses. This is the breath or image of God of which our essence is made of .....

That's the real name of your creator and he made that clear in the bible....there are no secrets in the universe in the universe only ignorance... And its ok for you to disagree ...

Would it be possible for us to meet sometime? I would like to hear more about YHWH.

Anyway the whole mathematics thing is irrelevant to the point at hand. There are three important concepts which are everything, nothing and something. In order to bypass the whole initial argument let's just say there's no such thing as nothing. Only everything and something. All possibilities lies in everything and whatever possibility you pick becomes something to you. but that doesn't mean any other possibility doesn't exist. if you claim your own possibility to be the only right one that is possible then you are ignoring the concept of everything. Isn't a popular christian saying, "with God all things are possible?" SO when I claim that 1+1=3 and its logical to me based on the mathematical method I use, I'm correct. if i say 1+1 is 2 I'm still correct. if i say again that 1+1=11 I'm still correct. All possibilities exist with God or in everything. You shouldn't just claim that your own possibility is the only thing possible. As a wise man once said, don't say I've found the truth. Say I've found a truth

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am sorry if you feel slighted. I don't mean to mock you at all but still your maths is terribly wrong here and it will be very bad of me if I don't let you know.[/quote]Based on what mathematics logic do you claim that I'm terribly wrong?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]please I beg you, stop this. You are murdering mathematics.[/quote]Are you saying that in mathematics I can't choose to make something the subject of the formula? It is typical for ignorant. People to result to jests when common sense fails them

[quote author=Mr_Anony]If a=1 and b=-1

Then 1(a+b)= 1(1-1) = 1x0 = 0,
0 = 0

Where did your 0=1 come from?[/quote]Yes 1*0=0 if you multiply it. But it wasn't multiplied. 1 was made the subject of the formula which led to 1=0/0 and ultimately 1=0

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lololololol.....thank God you said that you are not a mathematician because this is one of the worst mathematics I have seen in my life.

All I will ask you is to tell us what a is and what b is. I can assure you that once you assign any numbers to a and b, your theory immediately falls apart.[/quote]the problem is that you don't understand what logic is. Once the fundamental assumption that a+b=0 then it is logical that 1+1=3. The fundamental assumptions don't have to be correct. However let's assume that a=1 and b=-1

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I would really like to know this remarkable individual.[/quote]Put a+b = 0

so 1(a+b) = 0

1 = 0/(a+b)

0 = 1

Adding 2 on both sides

0+2 = 1+2

2 = 3

1+1 = 3

I'm not a mathematician but I can claim that the above is logical because the it follows the fundamental assumption that a+b=0

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Bros e be like say you dey drink redbull, your energy is just too much. I just dey read the thread dey laugh.

This argument is like trying to prove to somebody why 2+2 is not 5 but the person is telling you that he got it in a "higher dimension". Wetin again you wan tell am?

In fact this thread is inspiring me to start campaigning that Nigerian primary schools adopt logic to be taught as a compulsory subject in Primary 1 alongside mathematics.......so that while you are learning that 1+1=2, you will also be learning that "X" cannot be true and false at the same time (@greatgenius and Affiliated, that is really how basic it is)

I can't believe that grown men are making the kind of argument I am seeing on this thread. Seriously, who has bewitched these guys like this?[/quote]Didn't someone prove that 1+1=3? Once again are you trying to say that everywhere in the universe everything must follow your own or humans logic? If that's your own premise then arguing is pointless. Kurt Vonnegut said just because some of us can read and write and do a little math doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the universe. However isn't the whole idea of miracles the fact that God is able to bypass our logic?

Reyginus: lol. Someone's fundamental assuptions cannot be a lie.
1. No statement is true and false at the same time.
2. All statements cannot be both true and false, because the presence of once cancels the other.
3. Let's be rational please. Good cannot be both good, and evil. That is a logical contradiction.
If God is everything, then he's nothing in particular. If it is, then anything we take God to be is true.
Before we delve in proper, let's understand what it means for you to argue logically.

Yes. Whatever you take God to be is a truth. For example we know there's heat and cold but both are just different variations of the same thing. So I can claim something is both cold andhot at the same time.. It just depends on who's perspective.

Reyginus: In other words you are saying that senselessness doesn't exist, since what nobody can know is and not. That's not true. If he had understood what it means to argue rationally, he wouldn't have made such claims. I don't murder the very process I employ in arguing.
What I mean that a premise must be absolute is this. Whatever basis for your arguement must thorough, true and complete. You don't expect a logical conclusion from an illogical premise. Lets say
all mad men are presidents
john is a mad man
conclusion
john is a president.
The premise and the conclusion tally. But it is entirely an illogical statement, because as we know it, all mad men are not presidents.
No. That's not the meaning.

It seems this argument is now getting pointless. I've already pointed out that greatgenius claims are illogical so why do you keep pressing that point? What I'm pointing out is that not everything in the universe follows the laws of our logic.

greatgenius: lol if they are religious fanatics bringing science in it and telling them God basically is energy might get you hanged lol... i explained what YHwH stands for in another thread to some christians and the very idea that the name of their God are the elements HYDROGEN OXYGEN AND NITROGEN didnt sit well with them...

Link to thread please

greatgenius: ^^^^ he would read but not understand most of the things you just said... but keep educating him maybe he will start to open his awareness and get it..

I really tried to explain the whole idea using quantum physics which has proven that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time and can decide to be anyone at any given time. If that wasn't enough, I doubt the concept can be grasped. Anyway as long as everyone's beliefs work for them. No one is forcing anyone

Reyginus: ^^^@Affiliated
Logic doesn't contradict itself. Greatgenius is trying to murder logic.
In logic.
1. any statement is either true or false.
2. No statement can be both true and false.
3. If a statement is true, then it is true.
For this reason, you can't make sense out of what he's saying.

And once again this is your own logic. If someone's fundamental assumptions or premise was that
1. All statements are both true and false and can decide to be one or both at the same time
2. All statements are true and false and can decide to be one or both at the same time
3. If a statement is true then it is false
greatgenius and the person would be having a completely logical conversation between themselves when they claim God is and is not.
And based on my logic, God is everything that exists and is possible of existing in any form whatsoever. Now is it illogical for me to say that God is nothing in particular but everything? Once God is something, God is no longer everything.

Reyginus: ^^^@Affiliated
Logic doesn't contradict itself. Greatgenius is trying to murder logic.
In logic.
1. any statement is either true or false.
2. No statement can be both true and false.
3. If a statement is true, then it is true.
For this reason, you can't make sense out of what he's saying.

Saying I can't make sense out of what greatgenius says is once again revolving the universe around your conscious mind, I for one know what greatgenius claims is illogical at least to me but that doesn't mean it's not a possibility and I can't make sense out of it. I can make sense out of it the same way I can make sense of stars falling on earth and particles moving backwards in time and so on. Not all things that exist or occur follow my "premise". And on another note, how can one's premise be absolute? Wouldn't having an absolute premise mean knowing all secrets in the universe? The only absolute premise should be all things are possible

greatgenius: lol it is illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion in their head...if it does only then do they see it as logical... humans are funny i tell you...

i really dislike blind followers... you believe your "God" to be everywhere( becuase someone told you to)..to them if their God is everywhre then he must be a one powerful being... yet they fail to see that the very notion of their God being everywhere implies that he is no-where in particular... to them accepting that angle means their God might not be as powerful as they thought it to be(they incorrectly imagine no where to be infinitesimal and insignificant)... or worst their God might not even exist becuase they have been misled to bellieve that nowhere and nothing means non-existent. and that notion they cannot conceive and condone....

to humans more means better; greater means higher; higher means better...but i ask you this is a human up in the sky let say in an aircraft better than a human on the ground?...

I wonder why people feel that the Universe revolves around their conscious mind and must act according to its understandings. I really agree about the blind believers

Reyginus: Now you're coming close to what I'm talking about.
To your question.
First of all, you must understand before anything, your premise be absolute. Assuming we have a complete understanding of the sun, the statement will be illogical.

I agree with everything you said above That's what we have been saying all along. People with an incomplete understanding lock up their mind to other possibilities other than the possibilities open to their own limited mind. Now I agree that it is possible for all the stars to fall on the earth. Even though this does not make sense to me and it is illogical to me right now, I know all things are possible so I leave it at that. When greatgenius claims something both is and is not why can't you just take that same view? why must it become impossible just because its illogical to a person. That's the point of the whole argument

Reyginus: What will this help achieve?

You seem to think its logical for stars to fall on earth while I don't. I just wanted you to get the full picture of how big stars are.

Reyginus: The problem is still that you can not different illogical things with things not fully understood. You have to understand perfectly what it means for something to be logical or not. For the purpose of clarity, what you understand, not definition, of logical and illogical things? Don't define them.

Something illogical is something that doesn't go along with the fundamental assumptions or doctrines behind our thought process while something logical does. For example it would be illogical to a cave man for man to go to the moon because the fundamental assumption is men don't fly. I already know you will say I'm wrong but if you do then you are claiming to know English better than the dictionary which I checked

Reyginus: Hmmm. The problem is, you seem not to understand what it means for a premise not to agree with the conclusion.
Let's say
Premise: a fowls lay eggs
also their new born are housed in an egg
And conclude that
conclusion: fowls don't hatch eggs, the give birth to their newborn like humans.
That is a illogical because it's not sensible.

I think I understand it.
Premise: The sun's gravity keeps the earth in place.
If the sun's gravity were to fail the earth would fall of it's orbit until it is caught in another star's orbit
If the sun were to start falling so would the earth.
The sun is far bigger than the earth and the sun would be unable to land on the earth
Conclusion: The sun along with Other "septillion" stars would fall on the earth and life and activities would continue.

Illogical or logical?

To put things in perspective on the relationship between the earth and stars, One million earths would fit into the sun and please look at the sun in comparison to another star.

Reyginus: Lololololol. First and most importantly you must understand that a thing is not illogical when it doesn't make sense to you. It is only illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. Our limited understanding of the universe is the reason it seems illogical. Let's take our star for example. If we had the complete understanding of the universe , we may come to realize that it might have been caused by a chain of events. Hence, the falling of our large star is normal, only that we've not lived and studied long enough to witness it.

Even if I were to agree with your illogical assertion that the sun is capable of falling on the earth. John claimed in revelation that one third of the stars. So you imagine the numbers and sizes and explain how that is possible outside my limited understanding of the universe

Reyginus: Lololololol. First and most importantly you must understand that a thing is not illogical when it doesn't make sense to you. It is only illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. Our limited understanding of the universe is the reason it seems illogical. Let's take our star for example. If we had the complete understanding of the universe , we may come to realize that it might have been caused by a chain of events. Hence, the falling of our large star is normal, only that we've not lived and studied long enough to witness it.

And now you're talking of illogical things happening but outside our limited understanding of the Universe which is what we have been saying all along.

Reyginus: Lololololol. First and most importantly you must understand that a thing is not illogical when it doesn't make sense to you. It is only illogical when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. Our limited understanding of the universe is the reason it seems illogical. Let's take our star for example. If we had the complete understanding of the universe , we may come to realize that it might have been caused by a chain of events. Hence, the falling of our large star is normal, only that we've not lived and studied long enough to witness it.

I never claimed something was illogical when it didn't make sense to me. I gave dictionary definitions and followed it. You however claim that something is illogical only when the premise does not agree with the conclusion. My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines illogical as 1 : not observing the principles of logic *an illogical argument*
2 : devoid of logic : SENSELESS *illogical policies*, Anyway I'll humor you and agree that something can only be illogical when the premise doesn't agree with the conclusion. Back to the star matter it is outright illogical according to your claims for a star e.g the sun to fall on the earth. I actually checked for the meaning of premise to be sure I understood you. And note how Merriam-Webster claimed illogical is also senseless i.e. doesn't make sense to the individual

Reyginus: Lol. Are you asking me to dumb down to your level?
1. It is not the aim of science to try to understand the principles of reasoning. Don't tell me you've heard of philosophy.
2. That something is beyond our understanding does not make it illogical. I would have used our understanding of God here, but I know where it will lead us to.
3. Thank you for correcting the error. We are getting somewhere.
4. Sorry for the tone. Just that I can't stand and watch logic murdered in cold blood.
5. Again that a star drops to earth is not an illogical scenerio. It just show how incomplete our understand of the universe is.

First and most importantly thanks for apologising. Second I was giving dictionary definition of logic which is the science that tries to understand the principles of reasoning. I further went ahead to give the dictionary definition of principles which was defined as fundamental assumptions or doctrines. So logic is the science that tries to understand the fundamental assumptions and doctrines behind our reasoning. Our known laws of logic can be wrong for instance it would be illogical TO ME for a star to fall on the earth because the fundamental assumption behind my reasoning is that stars are far bigger than the earth and would probably melt the earth before contact. But I accept that I could be wrong. I know you possess all the secrets to the universe and it is impossible for you to be wrong but please dumb down to my level who is just seeking answers and try to see things from my point of view

Reyginus: Lol. Seriously?
1. Are we on this same thread? Lol. Chineke mo!
2. How is it now possible to possess the science of reasoning? You've not still answered my question. How does one possess logic?
3. Okay
4. Na wa o. Can logic change?
5. Lol. But you said logic is a way a person thinks. Choiii! If you define logic as the reason a person think you are contradicting your number two.
6. You say logic is the way a person thinks, and also if the way a person thinks is breached, it is now illogical. Are you listening to yourself at all.
Guy no kill me with laugh abeg.

I think you should start reading slowly to try to understand other people instead of reading speedily and interpreting everything to your own ideals.
Science tries to understand something. In this case the principles of reasoning. These principles can be assumptions or doctrines. So logic is the science that tries to understand why people think the way they do. Is it possible for something to not be scientific? Yes because it doesn't follow OUR known laws of science. Just the way its possible for something to be illogical because it doesn't follow OUR laws of logic. Saying logic is the way a person thinks was an error I've corrected. I don't appreciate the condescending tone. Is it logical for a star to fall on the earth? Yet it once was