₦airaland Forum

edlion57:
It will definitely get the attention of buyers....because we will always want to buy and show others

Humans can be computers too. In fact, that has always been the case until the machines were invented in the 20th century.

This is a simple conservation of energy problem: The charging rate remains the same, but the rate of discharge drops significantly, so you'll have a net reduction in the time it takes to fully recharge. I'm not sure by how much though.

UyiIredia:
It's a rather poor explanation. Cooperation is the quality of the supposed evolutionary transitions stated in the video not their cause.

That's true, but as the subject is on evolution, isn't survival implied as the cause? The next question then is, why are living things hellbent on survival though? This one is a keeper!

At each level of transition viriods, cellular components and cell colonies are cooperating. The question remains how such elements arose and how were they harmonized into a cooperating whole. It's obvious that life at every level involves cooperation. What is responsible for it

The question remains!

UyiIredia:
Yet more idiocy from you. Being composite doesn't prevent it from being basic. To the extent, most materials are composed of atoms it is basic. The idea that subatomic particles don't occupy any 'physical space' is idiotic. What does the particle exist in if not space ?

Physics is obviously not your forte, but that doesn't mean you should espouse this voluntary aversion to education, and with such crass savagery, no less.

1) "Basic form" has a specific meaning, so does "matter". When you say matter in its basic form, you're referring to matter in its most elementary state known to man. As far as the definition of "basic form"/"elementary" goes, a "composite" can never be a basic form of its constituents for obvious linguistic reasons (Mr. Comprehension). Quantity, "most" or few, has absolutely noting to do with it.

2) There is absolutely no evidence for the claim that most materials are composed of atoms. Let me educate you. Matter makes up about 30% of the known universe. of this, baryonic matter (to which all atoms belong) is estimated to be about 5%. Also, not all baryonic matter is composed of atoms (neutron stars for example). So the claim that most materials are composed of atoms is made out of ignorance. Correct it!

3) Since you believe "basic properties" ("in itself" ), connotes "basic form"; and then claim that "being composite doesn't prevent something from being basic (form)", haven't you plunged yourself into an awkward dilemma?! For I may then ask, if composite atoms can be a basic form of matter as you claim, then what stops the brain from also being a basic form of matter? The brain is no less a composite of baryonic matter than atoms are, is it?

4) Not all "particles" exist in space and have mass simultaneously (recall the definition of matter). In particle physics, "particles" are just called that out of convenience, because of the energy mass equivalency (Remember the famous E = mc²?), not because they occupy space and have mass. Sure enough, many of these particles have "masses" which are actually measured in units of energy (KeV, MeV, GeV), but they do not really occupy space, so they are merely high energy phenomena, not matter. Examples of such subatomic particles are quarks, neutrinos, pretty much all bosons (like photons which occupy neither space nor have any mass).

I implore you again, heed my previous advice about resisting that temptation to misconstrue your smartness for knowledge.

UyiIredia:
‘There are many physical phenomena in the universe that are immaterial’

The highlighted statements contradict.
Why?

You're clearly a smart person, so I urge you to resist the temptation of equating your smartness to knowledge. This sort of arrogance is the downfall of many a smart person.

I repeat, there are physical phenomena that are immaterial. I assume you've heard of electromagnetic waves!

DeepSight:
Just to address some snippets of your comments Sir - (However note my original revert to you above).

Okay sir

Yes it would appear you have terribly misunderstood the meaning of self existence.

This misunderstanding is now corrected, thanks

This is a sorry load of contradictions: however I am pleased to note that you have taken the trouble to point out the fallacies and contradictions yourself, so no matter.

1. As you already pointed out, the so called vacuum is not "nothing". Examples of virtual particles in quantum vacuums as evidence of things being uncaused are already flawed as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere in the universe and these vacuums referred to in fact contain low gaseous pressure. Therefore from the get go: the "fluctuations" / "particles" referred to are not emerging from nothing and once they are not emerging from nothing, the argument cannot be made that they are uncaused: even where one doesn't understand the cause of the fluctuations.

You are correct that there might be underlying causes for the apparently random behavior of the particles (or even, that the current model of the universe demands this). But understand that the current model has its limitations, and there is a chance that there might not be any underlying causes (since we don't fully understand what laws, if any, motivate such quantum phenomena). So far, many have tried using various versions of "hidden variables theory", to pin the underlying mechanism down, but no success yet...so I'm not rejecting determinism, I'm just rejecting the idea that it is the only possibility.

2. As Iredia pointed out, in the case of fluctuations you ought to avert your mind the to the question - what is fluctuating?

Our current understanding of vacuum is!

Your disclaimer is welcome but the idea of random fluctuations/ virtual particles in a quantum vacuum does nothing whatsoever to show things being uncaused or things emerging from nothingness.

Nothingness is not necessarily a realistic state!

Please go back and read my explanation on why self existent things are necessarily immutable and respond to that. And no, I did not limit the universe to matter, so please read carefully. Matter is permeated by the immaterial - however in referring to the universe in that context, I meant all that it is physically comprised of including its physical matter and physical energies. If all of these were caused by something else, that something else could not be physical itself. It would be non-physical: and this is what I sought to convey.

And, oh, what a big "IF"!

Please get this point very clear so that it is not a source of confusion in further discussion: when I refer to the material universe I refer to all its matter and physical energies as one continuing thing: When I refer to an immaterial element I do not refer to dark energy or other such elements within the universe. I refer to completely non physical transcendental elements beyond the universe and its material / physical nature.

Thanks for the clarification.

DeepSight:
Many thanks for your thoughtful queries, I honestly appreciate them and respond as follows.

Thanks for responding, and it would be remiss of me not to appreciate your dignified mannerism too! It's a breath of fresh bytes!

Pray tell: why do you say it is not a logical statement?

It is a most logical and even unavoidable reality that there must exist something or somethings which are self existent?

I withdraw my objection about self existence not being logical. It emanated from a poor understanding of what was meant by self-existent. It is logical.

For if you have contemplated the issues carefully, you must recognize per force that the options are limited to either the existence of a self-existent universe or the existence of self existent Deity (I use the word Deity to describe a transcendental originating existent element). And the reason that this is the case is because if the universe is not self existent, then something caused it to be. If it is self existent, then nothing caused it to be and the matter rests there. However we know that the universe had a beginning and the laws of motion give us to know that where anything material begins to move, it must have been acted upon by an external force or trigger. This leaves us with the only other possibility which is the existence of a self-existent trigger external to the universe.

Remember that this cannot be avoided since we have already shown that "a permanent something" must exist since things exist. That "permanent something" is clearly not the universe as it had a beginning.

We are thus left to consider the existent of a self existent permanent trigger which is itself not the universe.

insightful, but it is sullied by one fundamental flaw: Note that the way in which we determined that the universe began to exist comes from the observation that space itself, not matter in space, is accelerating at a constant rate. The theory goes thus: If space is expanding, and we assume at a constant rate (adjusted with some density parameters), then we can extrapolate to an epoch of pure energy, the beginning of space (S) and time (T) as we know it. Put in another way, S ~ 0, T ~ 0. At this point, everything, including the laws of motion, is in a degenerate state. So while you are entitled to apply such laws to the singularity, there is no real basis for such an assumption?

This takes nothing away from my argument. In fact I have often said that God being infinite cannot be limited to one thing. Therefore I have often described God as the sum of all self existent laws.

That is true, but takes nothing away from the description above of God as the infinite sum of all self existent laws.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification! But when you say "self-existent laws", do you mean to say the "laws" are abstract entities that can be extricated from their physical expressions? The problem with making such an assumption is that the very law which leads you to conclude that the universe had a beginning breaks down catastrophically at a point (due to quantum effects) just before the universe can be extrapolated to 0 (or nothingness) (see my previous discussion). So, at best, we can say the law is incomplete; but there's a chance that it can also be a catastrophically wrong theory that just happens to have discrete points of fantastic correlation with our presently observed universe. So with that chance existing, it is strictly speaking, necessary to qualify the statement about the beginning of the universe in this way: "The universe, as we know it, began to exist". Such tempered language, while uncommon in mainstream communication, is in fact standard within the academia, and even when not used, is usually understood to have been implied. Therefore, with the possible existence of a (physical) primordial singularity, you have not shown that it is necessary to extricate laws from their physical expressions. Which is what you are doing, thereby logically stretching a known law beyond its physical, and dare I say logical limits.

Oh no: for this is not the case at all: the particular definition of God which we lay out is well known, and stretches across most or all worldviews as far as definitions go: it is not limited to any ethnic or religious composition of God - but sets out the basics of that which we theologically and philosophically hold: that God is the self existent, eternal, transcendental, intangible creator of all that exists. Each of these words is important as those are the qualities sought to be proven, and not whatever you call Jago Jago, or the religious constrictions of Allah, Yahweh, Olodumare, Zeus, Brahman and all such.

That definition being clear, the logic of the matter as expatiated above deals already with the question of self-existence. For anything at all to exist, something or the other must self-exist already: as there can be no "nothing". This is iron-cast logic already. We know that the universe does not self exist as it had a beginning. Thus the existence of a self existent element which is not the universe is proven. It logically follows that if it is not the universe and if it caused matter to be, it cannot itself be matter. Thus it is proven to be immaterial. Once it exists outside of the universe it is transcendental. Thus the key elements of the definition are proven as logical and it does not matter if you choose to name that element Oloriburuku. That is your business. But the existence of the element is logically clear.

At the very least, I have shown that the creator does not have to be transcendental. Also, following the flaw which I pointed out earlier, I reject the claim that the universe does not self-exist. The universe as we know it, yes, but not necessarily the universe as the sum of all possible states. There may very well have been an epoch at (T~0+) in the universe where matter (or even individual particles) never existed at all, but the universe still existed.

As I have said above, God is infinite. I have only used the different terms "something" and "somethings" to refer separately to that transcendental permanent self existent element (of infinite nature) which I refer to as God as opposed to all other things that exist as a result. I hope that is clear now.

It is clear; and the transcendental attribute of god is clearly presumptive too.

Even where processes consume each other this does nothing to obviate the principle of causality at play.

Maybe not, but it questions the supposed immutability of the first cause if we refrain from extricating a law from its physical expression. There is no reason why you should assume any law can act independent of a process.

A self existent thing cannot mutate. That belies the very nature of self-existence. Now understand carefully why: the laws of motion give us to know that that which begins to move requires a cause or trigger. Mutation is as such an requires a cause or trigger. Thus things that change logically cannot be self existent as well. A self existent thing will permanently be of the same nature.

This supposition has its roots in classical laws, which as I have pointed out, do have their limits. Mutations can be truly random and uncaused according to the uncertainty principle.

Please when you speak of random fluctuations I hope you are not referring to virtual particles. I hope you also understand that the explanation I have just given in the paragraph above should show you why there can be no random mutations with a self existent thing. A self existent thing is immutable.

I was referring to virtual particles. I cannot apply the classical laws of motion to quantum phenomena. As such, I do not accept your previous explanation as a good reason why self-existence should preclude mutation.

Following from the explanation why self existent things are immutable, you should be able to understand why matter cannot be self existent. Because it is mutable.

I've never argued that matter is self-existent. But I don't accept that self-existent things cannot mutate.

I hope you understand now, however I am still available if you have further queries.

Thanks for clarifying. I enjoyed the depth with which you addressed my comments. Also, I withdraw my earlier charge of you being a terrible logician. You are logical to a fault!

UyiIredia:
You are very stupid. If a random fluctuation is the first cause, then it has no preceding cause and so is self-existent. If random fluctuations has a cause then it can't be the first cause. Also, presenting random fluctuation as a cause of matter is absurd. What is fluctuating ?

I may have misunderstood the meaning of "self-existent". Does it connote existence in perpetuity? If something comes into existence, initiates a reaction and goes back out of existence, would that thing be self-existent?

Random fluctuations aren't absurd at all. An example of random fluctuations is in quantum fluctuations that occur in zero-point field. Here, any particle with a wavefunction, due to the intrinsic uncertainties of quantum systems, can spontaneously pop in and out of existence in vacuum. Vacuum, of course, is not "nothing", as it has an absolute minimum energy value. So, while an argument can be made for the self-existence of vacuum, a scenario is conceivable where it has no control over the spontaneous emergence of particles. The only requirement at any given time is that the net change in the field energy of the system = 0; and momentum is conserved. Note that this requirement does not preclude the possibility of localised maxima and minima of energy states that all cancel out when integrated over the whole system. Now, if such a spontaneous fluctuation does occur, from which matter is then created, it is evident that it was not "caused". Or maybe it can be said to have been caused by the random property of quantum systems (but this is mere semantics since the said property is fundamentally undefinable). The fact is that the first cause was, though uncaused (is this what is meant by "self-existent"?), not always existing (or this?). Also, it may even have transformed into something completely different from its initial state so that it is effectively "dead", thus cannot be said to be existing any longer.

Disclaimer: I do not claim that this is how the universe came about, I'm just presenting an alternative hypothesis whose core assumptions have the distinct advantage of being grounded in scientific observations.

No. You were considering the set of things that God could mean using vague examples.

God means nothing to me, so my examples were vague, yes, but that does not detract from the point I wished to make, which is that "God" is an obscure term.

Definition a suffices for me.

If your definition of "god" is: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Then there is no logical basis for the existence of such an entity for the following reasons:

1) No reason is provided as to why the creator is one, so this is an assumption, not a logical deduction.
2) No reason is provided as to why the creator is necessarily the "ruler of the universe", or indeed, why there must be a ruler for the universe.
3) No reason is provided as to why the creator is a moral being, or why it is the source of all moral authority
4) No reason is provided as to why the creator is even a sentient, let alone deliberate being.

This is irrelevant to my point.

It isn't, since you insist that an "immaterial/formless god" is the only possible source of existence.

Wrong. You stated that Deep Sight was trying to create a false dichotomy between matter and self-existence then brought the example of vibrational energy which you never showed was self-existent.

Yes, Deepsight set up his logical argument so that there are only two possible sources of existence; namely matter or a self-existent, immutable, immaterial entity. My goal was to show that this was a false dichotomy, since the universe is not only made up of matter. There are many physical phenomena in the universe that are immaterial which could be responsible for the existence of matter, and they don't have to be immutable. In fact, if there was a register of who is who in the universe, matter would not make the cut.

Furthermore, since vibrational energy is not abstract then you failed to show it is a false dichotomy.
Okay.

Makes no sense.

UyiIredia:
Your English comprehension must be rather poor if you don't understand that 'in itself' usually refers to the basic qualities of something.

I don't presume to have the best comprehension skills, but blaming the misunderstanding on my comprehension inadequacy is a shameless trivialisation of the meaning of matter. You may have had a clear picture in your mind when you mentioned "matter", but you're too arrogant to notice that you failed to convey that meaning in your writing; possibly because you lack a clear understanding of what that word means. Let me help you:

Matter is defined as anything that has rest mass and occupies space. As such anything, be it elementary or composite, that satisfies that definition qualifies as matter (as far as classical understanding goes). An electron is matter, as is a atom. A grain of sand is matter, an apple is matter, a human is matter and so on. Moreover, all these things are distinguishable because they have "basic qualities", which is why we bother to categorise them in the first place. Basically, the word "matter" is a supergroup which consists of many subgroups of objects that fit that definition. Therefore, when you say something like "Matter in itself absolutely lacks mental properties"; and you have not indicated what kind of matter you're referring to; you've by definition implied the whole supergroup in your statement! Anyone would therefore be right to counter such a bizarre claim with the simple fact that your brain is matter "in itself", and it possesses mental properties. In fact, its mental property is one of the "basic qualities" of the category of matter known as the brain. At any rate, if you agree that matter in some composite form can possess mental properties, of what relevance is your initial statement?

No. Explain how you came by that conclusion. Also refer to my explanation to wiegraf on why mind > matter.

How can you, in one stretch, agree that mind is a property of matter, then in another stretch claim that mind > matter? Mind is no more superior to matter than a banana peel is to banana. I assume the explanation you're referring me to is the one in which you posited that mind manipulates matter, which is just silly! Mind needs matter infinitely more than matter needs mind. Need I remind you that matter also manipulates mind!

The only thing incorrect was stating elements and compounds were basic forms of matter. They aren't. Atoms and sub-atomic particles are basic forms of matter.

I'd exercise caution when talking about matter if I were you, because it is not a trivial matter (see what I done there? )! Atoms cannot be basic forms of matter because they are composite structures. The only atom that can simultaneously be classified as a basic form of matter is H⁺ (otherwise known as ionised hydrogen or proton). Furthermore, not all subatomic "particles" can be called matter because they don't all occupy any physical space or even have a rest mass. As I said earlier on, Dirac fermions (Electrons to be specific. I hesitate to include all leptons for good reason) and nucleons (for the similarly good reason, I hesitate to include all baryons) are what constitute fundamental forms of matter. We can go into discussions about the Standard Model of particle physics, but it is neither helpful nor required to consider anything as matter in that field.

wiegraf:
Great video

Neither, as neither has freewill

Or maybe it's the bacteria, as plaetton argues

https://www.nairaland.com/1859229/ye-gods-all-all-100#25505602

That was a rich thread, although, it quickly degenerated into a contest of 'how many insults can we slip into complementary arguments' between plaetton and joshthefirst. Thanks for sharing, still.
Talking about arguments, I've seen many materials link thoughts to immaterial viruses. After all, they compete for space in our minds. As a result, they display all the attendant properties of viruses, they war with, and consume each other, form complex ecosystems with other thoughts (when we develop theories), get reinforced (or evolve) when they are nurtured (by our contemplations and/or arguments with people holding opposing thoughts); and most strikingly, they even try to spread by infecting other minds (when we develop the urge to share our thoughts).

In light of plaetton's exposition on the role of these microbes in manipulating us, I wonder if direct link(s) could be drawn between our thoughts, behavior and the survival of the microorganisms that we are composed of? For example, how do our conversations and arguments on Nairaland promote the survival of these organisms?

frank317:
This one pass my power

Haha...you can still enjoy the beautiful simplicity of the video.

Just saw this recent video by 'Stated Clearly'. It touches upon some of the most recent discoveries in evolution. What I found most interesting about it is its simple demonstration of the discrete transformation of a group of organisms to a superorganism with completely new properties and functions.

Makes me wonder if we evolved all of these complex functionalities, including our minds, so that a colony of Archaea and other sub-cellular organisms can survive. This would make us, in a sense, the hive minds of these microorganisms! So when we feel hungry, tired, fear, etc, it is ultimately our microscopic overlords manipulating us for selfish reasons? Eerie!

Anyway, it seems eminently reasonable to me that the apparent distinctions between the characteristics of the 'whole' and the 'unit' may not be as mutually exclusive as they play out, but are an elaborate trick geared toward a single purpose, survival. But who is in the driver's seat?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfNEHl44hc

UyiIredia:
Let's see if you've learnt anything.

Thanks for calling yourself the idiot. I gave a reason as to why self-existence is needful. You simply assert it's dubious with no reason whatsoever. Not unexpected.

You're welcome! Invoking a self-existent first cause lacks merit, either as an axiom or a logical deduction. An intrinsically random fluctuation may very well have been the first cause, and there is no requirement for it to be self-existing. So, yes, I assert your claim is dubious because it is just an assumption which you desperately require in order to prevent your deistic philosophy from crumbling under the weight of logic. You may have left theism, but you still cling on to some of the more unfortunate characteristics of many theists.

For the meaning of God go check your dictionary. That said, to the extent you didn't specify a process or reaction, those were black boxes. But then you have said you are (probably) an idiotic communicator. Thanks for the heads up. I would say it's more accurate in this case that you are an idiotic reader.

You do have a fetish for veering off on tangents! My examples were to demonstrate how nebulous "god" really is. If you found their vagueness irritating, welcome to my world! That's exactly what I feel when you say things like "god is the first cause".

I've checked the meaning of god in my (OED) dictionary, so which of the following is the definition that resonates with you?

a) (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

b) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity

c) An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god

d) Used as a conventional personification of fate

e) Greatly admired or influential person.

f) A thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god

g) the gods (informal) The gallery in a theatre

Your rebuttal only applies to things with form that are permanent. Since God is immaterial, God is formless. But then again an idiot won't know that.

Remind me, what's the point of this "immaterial/formless" god again?

I don't think I missed the point. Humor me though by stating the point.

The point was to show that just because matter is mutable doesn't mean the first cause must be immutable or self-existing. My particular example of vibrational energy was invoked to show that it is erroneous to create a false dichotomy between material and an abstract entity that happens to have the exact opposite properties as matter; as though matter is all there is to the physical universe. Assumptions are anything but logical deductions!

To the extent you did not bother to clarify yourself, or examine anything, going on with dim-witted mistatements I'd take this assertion as seriously a mad man's ramblings.

As is your right!

UyiIredia:
Go back to my initial response and educate yourself on the context.

I don't have to. My response to it was a sufficient rebuttal.

Good then. Explain the process by which chemical reactions in the neurons of the brain result in consciousness. Keep in mind principles governing chemistry. I'm waiting.

Add this to the list of the countless other things I am ignorant about. I'm not versed in neurochemistry and other cognitive sciences.

My statement doesn't deny that certain physical configurations have mental properties. My statement was that matter in itself (or in its most basic form eg atoms, elements and even compounds) lacks mental properties: this is why when wiegraf countered that I'm a matter with mind, I didn't deny it but asked him whether molecules in the brain could be said to be conscious. Now that I have further clarified myself I hope you won't continue in this display of idiocy.

I never said matter in all its forms does not have mental properties. That's a strawman. Obviously you did not comprehend my argument.

I don't think your earlier claim conveyed the emboldened information in the bracket above. I believe what you said was:

UyiIredia:
Mind is greater than matter. Matter in itself absolutely lacks mental properties...

If there was any hint that by "matter in itself", you meant "(matter) in its most basic form", Wiegraf and I would have entirely agreed with you; and would never have had a reason to point out that you are matter with mental properties. By your clarification though, it is evident we are all in agreement of the following:

1) While the brain is matter, it isn't matter "in its most most basic form".
2) Matter in its most basic form doesn't, as far as we know, possess mental properties.
3) Matter can, and does posses mental properties in certain complex configurations.

I hope from the foregoing points of agreement, we can naturally conclude that it makes no sense to declare that mind > matter.

Quick correction: Your notion of matter in its most basic form (i.e. atoms (elements) and compounds) is incorrect. The basic forms of matter, as far as we know, are dirac fermions and nucleons. Please take note.

UyiIredia:
Au contrairé. You are the inept logician.

Let's examine this accusation.

Very foolish statement. Just because something is assumed doesn't make it false or illogical. Self-existence, like the concepts of infinite time and space is axiomatic and as such is self-evidently true except to blokes. It is obvious that in a given chain of causes there MUST be a cause that itself exists without respect to any other cause, which is what self-existence is.

I take it you're not a bloke then? A claim that demands to be brazenly qualified as "self-evident" and "obvious" ever so often, usually turns out dubious. But what does an idiot like me know?

So you disparage Deep Sight's definition of God as an undefined black box yet bring two undefined black boxes of yours. You failed to specify the mindless processes and unpredictable reactions.

Those weren't black boxes, those were invoked as examples of possible contents in DeepSight's black box called "God", in order to illustrate the fact he has not been clear about the meaning of "god". But your misapprehension is probably because I'm an idiotic communicator.

It's only vague to an idiot. Something obviously refers to the universe and nothing means the absence of anything at all. Replacing the word God doesn't in the least hamper the point. There is also a distinction between somethings (the universe) and something (a being that preceded the universe).

See above.

Idiot is as idiot does!

Poor logic. It does. Obviously, if things comes from things, then if things exist there was always a thing. Furthermore, that primordial thing must have always existed (ie eternal) for there to be things. Your example with chaos theory is irrelevant to the point, we are dealing with final causes here not causality within nature.

This probably made so much sense in your head. But who am I to judge the wisdom of a person so obviously smarter than I am?

The more appropriate criticism here would be that Deep Sight did not give a reason as to why being self-existent demands immutability. Your objection using natural phenomena is pointless, unless you are suggesting nature and its matter are self-existent.

Oh! How did I miss such a blatant criticism? I forgot to emphasise in my rebuttal that "Permanent existence isn't quite the same as permanent form"

Insofar you have refrained from categorically stating that vibrational energy is self-existent I should dismiss this argument. This is an argument by insinuation. You are suggesting that vibrational energy is self-existent. Furthermore, since vibrational energy is not matter Deep Sight's point stands on a technicality.

You should have dismissed the argument, but you just couldn't help but miss the point, could you?

Not at all. But I would and must say that Deep Sight's argument could have been better put. I'll still give it a pass.

Thank you teacher!

Honestly, you are no better. In fact, you are even worse given your particularly foolish statement that self-existence isn't logical. Then you try to suggest matter is self-existent using vibrational energy.

And your rebuttals tried, with success, to exemplify ignoratio elenchi!

UyiIredia:
It is a question of mind vs matter within the context of the discussion. The holism vs reductionism question is also a part of it. Dismissing the former is silly.

You completely missed the point then. Mind vs matter is a superfluous rehashing of the holism vs reductionism debate.

Your analogy with electrons only buttresses my point. Just as electrons without color constitute a painting with color so do molecules without minds constitute a brain with minds.

Yes, it only buttresses your point to the extent that it demonstrates that an object made up of a collection of things can suddenly acquire holistically distinct and uncorrelated properties than those of its individual constituents. Where we diverge, is that whereas I have implied, with evidence, that the sudden acquisition of the distinct properties of the whole from its fundamental units can be fully explained by material/physical phenomena; you, on the other hand, seem tyrannically compelled to disentangle the property from its object, simply because its units do not exhibit similar properties as the whole (object).

That is why I asked wiegraf whether the molecules in brains have minds. Because he was challenging my statement that matter lacks mental properties.

And he is right to challenge you statement; it is absurd! Given the right physical configurations, matter can have mental properties.

I ended my interjection with the following:

AgentOfAllah:
Obviously, it makes as much sense to ask if the electrons are with colour as it does, to ask if the molecules that make up the brain are with a mind.

This was an understated expression, intended to argue that it makes no sense to assume that matter, in all its forms, does not have mental properties on the basis that it doesn't exhibit mental properties in most of its forms. By anthropic principle, you (I presume), Wiegraf, and I are examples of the state in which matter can exhibit mental properties.

If you want to be wiegraf's partner in idiocy be my guest.

No, I'd rather be your partner in learning. Thanks for the offer though!

UyiIredia:
Are the molecules that make up the brain with a mind or not ?

Just a quick interjection:
This is not so much a question of mind vs matter, as it is a question of holism vs reductionism. When you look at a painting on the wall, you don't for a second assume that the individual electrons bound to the atoms that make up the colourful molecules that make up the paints used, have colours of their own, do you? But combined in particular configurations, these colourless electrons arrange themselves in such a way as to absorb, transmit or reflect light to give a semblance of colourfulness to the beautiful painting which you observe.

Obviously, it makes as much sense to ask if the electrons are with colour as it does, to ask if the molecules that make up the brain are with a mind.

Over to you Wiegraf!

DeepSight, as admirable as your writing skill is, you're a terrible logician, and I'll demonstrate why as you read on:

DeepSight:
I have said that God is eternal and was not created.

I'll leave this here because it is the hypothesis which you seek to derive by logic.

What does it mean for something to be self existent? It means that it exists by default: it could not but exist - existing is its core nature: it needs no creator. Infinite Time is an example and so is infinite space.

Self-existence, much like "infinite time" and "infinite space", while clearly defined, isn't a logical statement. It is merely an assumption which you have compelled, with no basis whatsoever, to inhabit reality.

God is that necessary primordial self existent factor on which all reality rests.

Note that this is still just a claim. God, in your statement, is an undefined equivalent of a black box system which could consist in/of any number of things. Indeed, there can be many necessary primordial self-existent factors on which all realit(ies/y) rest(s). These factors may be mindless processes acting in parallel or may be a chain of uncontrollable/unpredictable reactions. Logic demands definitions, but none is given yet.

You go on to outline your logical argument as follows:

Understand:

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. As such, the somethings that exist came from something already existing.

4. Since things exist, then there was always a something because if there was nothing, there would always have remained nothing and never any something.

5. Thus, something eternal and permanent exists.

6. Anything which is eternal and permanent is self-existent.

7. Self existent things are not mutable by reason of their self-existent and permanent nature.

8. Matter is mutable and changeable and therefore not self existent.

9. Ergo, matter is not that which is the permanent self-existent something.

10. Ergo, that which precedes all things is a permanent, self-existent, non material essence.

11. This is what is referred to as God.

The logical argument above is as technically accurate as proposing "some shape" as the answer to the question: "What is a square?" You've made an argument about "something", "somethings" and "nothing", which is vague, and then gone on to synonymise "something" with "god" without providing clarity on what god means (as I discussed earlier). The futility of such an approach quickly becomes apparent if I replace the word "god" with "jagojago".

Now to your specific points:

1) One wonders if your concept of "something" is a universal set of all the possible thing(s) that could be "god", including mindless parallel processes and unpredictable consequences of a mindful/mindless cause? This may seem trivial to you, but it isn't, because if "something" is a set group, I am forced to ask why you have bothered distinguishing between "something" and "somethings" in your first 3 sentences. And if it isn't, what informs its semantic singularity? Please clarify.

2) Your points 4 and 5 do not logically follow from point 3. Processes can consume each other so that while a cause can be inferred, the initial process can never be retraced, rendering the initial process effectively "dead" (or impermanent). Chaos theory has well-formulated examples of this.

3) Point 7 isn't clear at all. Do you mean to say self-existing things are permanently immutable or that they cannot mutate of their own accord. Either ways, this point is baseless. In the former case, while we've never experienced any self-existing object(s), our knowledge of random fluctuations may hint to the possibility of mutations in our hypothetical self-existing object. Permanent existence isn't quite the same as permanent form, as any physicist would point out to you. And if you meant the latter, then there is always the possibility that they can mutate by interaction with other self-existing things. You haven't given a reason as to why two or more self-existing entities cannot co-exist.

4) In point 8 and 9, you create a false dichotomy between matter and self-existing objects. Vibrational energy is not matter! Although, it is mutable; and can transform, given the right frequency and momentum, into matter and vice versa. It may or may not be permanent, but so far, nothing we know has ever caused it to annihilate. The jury is still out on this one!

5) Needless to say, point 10 is a faulty conclusion.

No cop out, no paradox, simple and clear philosophical logic.

You say this as if cop outs and paradoxes are the only things that invalidate logic.

As you have seen, your logic is, borrowing from Tesla's expression, a beggar garbed in dazzling eloquence!

It is not clear why people are laughing! This is very cruel and disgusting!

1) He came in like a thief after stealing the pay of his contractors

2) According to the referenced thread, it was noted that in 1 Thessalonians 5:4, we are told that the faithful will know of his coming. It is no secret that while most people and polls believed he'd lose, American extremist evangelicals consistently predicted that a special man will win the elections, and even voted for him en-masse (81%)

3) It is also said that Jesus will come by 20th of January, 2017; and this special man will be sworn-in as president of the most powerful nation in the world on the same day

If it is not already obvious to you, then I'll spell it out: Donald Trump is the second coming of Jesus Christ!

All hail king Trump, the second of the Christ, the Don grabber of kitty-cats, the bringer of nuke lights, the protector of the faithful and the annihilator of the others!!!

benzics:
I just stumbled on this amazing, intelligent, totally brilliant video by darkmatter2525 on Youtube, this video is the bomb to those saying "god is eternal", "god exists "," god created the universe " and you know the rest of the sh-it...

All those who think it's illogical to not believe in a God , I think you shouldn't miss this awesome video, let me just drop it jor...

Yes, DarkMatter2525's cartoons are some of the richest online resources in the never ending discourse about religion and god. Needless to say, I've seen pretty much all of his videos, and I always get excited when a new one is released. The one I enjoyed the most was "Universe" with its simple, yet deep take on existentialism.

damesilver:
I decided to begin to read all that you have written on this forum; now, I'm on page 6, although I scanned through some, I read some in detail. I must say I really enjoy reading your responses to questions.

Wow, that's incredible dedication. I feel honoured!

If you don't mind I want to humbly request that you examine a book I think provides answers to questions of life and existence.

Please don't mind that a small boy like myself makes you a request. I think that you are a seeker of true knowledge and you are an open person with an intellectual ability to investigate.

Knowledge is no respecter of position, size or age, so I have no problem learning from anybody.

You might have come across the work 'In The Light of Truth, The Grail Message'. I would sincerely want to know your view of what the book contains. Please, if you can, study it from cover to cover and the lectures in their order of sequence.

Thank you.

Yes, I have known about 'The Grail Message' since I was in high school, through my physics teacher who was (I'm not sure if he still is) a grail messenger. Although, I admit not having read the book cover to cover, I wish to respectfully decline committing myself to it at the moment; partly because I am in the middle of several books and writing a paper; but especially because I am usually deeply skeptical about any book that is advertised as a collection of "answers to questions of life and existence". Lest you wonder whence comes my skepticism: It is simply from a principle of mine in which every individual is a quantum of consciousness. We are all modulated, no doubt, by many shared external stimuli, but ultimately, the pathways that provide interpretations and meanings to our shared experiences are fundamentally unique for each individual, much like the pathways that lead to each snow flake's pattern is fundamentally unique. This, to me, means that there are as many answers to the questions of life and existence as there are people. Nevertheless, if you find any particularly interesting content of the book that you wish us to discuss, I will be happy to have such a discussion with you; without committing to the whole text.

The only question on my mind is: Why are the guards of honour dressed silly, like little red riding hoods?

Proudlyngwa:
To the people of those days it meant same,
A lot of things are lost in translation.

You're wantonly ignorant my friend.

Proudlyngwa:
No, the bible said from dust I formed you, from dust you shall return.
Dust could mean a lot of things.
Like I told you, sectuons of the Holy book could be for historical or moral purposes amidst others, choose which one favours you

I'm not even sure why you're having this conversation with me.

Is dust the same thing as clay to you?

Proudlyngwa:
I have said the Bible stands for a lot of things.
It was written under inspiration from the Holy spirit.
If it was written recently , a lot of terminology used then won't be used now
When looking at the Bible, we look at the Historical, cultural , moral ,spiritual angle amongst many other things.
The Old testament was written mainly for the Jews in preparation for the Messiah, most terms used then were for people of those days.

So do you or do you not acknowledge that the claim that man was created from clay is nonsensical in today's terminology; particularly when it is claimed to be scientifically accurate?

Proudlyngwa:
When was phosphorus, calcium, copper known to be what they are today. When did we discover the atom.
The Hyman brain and humanity is evolvoving.

Yes, agreed! This is why the contents of your holy book reflect the same level of ignorance that man possessed 1400 - 2000 years ago! Isn't it then blindingly obvious to you that your holy book was written by ignorant men who didn't know better, not an all-knowing god as you are wont to claim?

Proudlyngwa:
Humans are made from earth materials.
Earth materials equal clay to people of those days

Stupid! I dare you to mention what earth material humans are made of that was known as clay?

I hope the readers are paying attention to how that verse has slowly transformed from a miracle of 1400 years ago into an excusable, ignorance reinforcing synonym for oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. Apparently, god, the creator of everything, found humans mischaracterising its creation; and instead of correcting the colossal misunderstanding, god thought it a better idea to play along and promote that ignorance because humans weren't capable of understanding anything. Interestingly, whenever god found humans worshiping one other than itself due to the same "mental limitations", it didn't blame that on their mental capacity and play along, no, it struck them with all kinds of calamities instead...isn't god wonderful?

onetrack:
I find it funny when Muslims emphasize the fact that Muhammad was illiterate (of course, it's possible that he wasn't). Being illiterate does not mean that he was stupid, deaf, blind, or not well traveled. Illiterate people also have very good memories to compensate for their illiteracy.

Exactly!

Proudlyngwa:
In 200 years people will ask what is Fax.

We keep on evolving, and discovering new things and new uses of things known before.
The creator could only communicate with people of then at their level of understanding

God is a God of orderliness, and does things in stages.

This is an outrageous excuse. There is absolutely no stage in human cognition where the understanding of what clay is has transmogrified to hydro-carbons. To claim humans are made from clay is patently bogus and cannot be called scientific in the remotest sense of that word, as was claimed by the OP.

Proudlyngwa:
Because when man dies hecwill return to dust.

this is a false assertion. When man dies, he doesn't "return to dust", he is devoured by bacteria, fauna and flora!

Clay was the general name for most minerals then

Another falsehood! At no point has clay ever been the general name for minerals, most or few. Clay has had a specific meaning historically. It is a substance that has always been known for its molding and maleable properties, especially for use in sculpting. This probably explains why it was tempting for the illiterate to assume humans were molded from clay. Not anything to do with minerals.

as we just recently discovered the periodic table.

Oh so you mean to say the creator of man and everything else was learning about the periodic table at the same pace as mankind? That's rich!

Emusan:
You're still proving I too know and adamant to correction.

Asking how old was Adam when he was created is not just out of sense but pure lack of knowledge.

Age is THE WHOLE DURATION OF A BEING, whether animal, vegetable, or other kind; LIFETIME.

The best question you can ask is, in what form Adam was created?

Very simple but using DURATION to ask about first appearance of something is out of it.

I can phrase my question however I feel it best represents my thoughts, so if you're so smart, just answer the question rather than trying to help me rephrase my question. It is simple! How old was Adam when he was created?

Who ask you about FAITH? Your obsession about faith has beclouded you beyond reason.

I'm only here telling you that your reason is faulty, instead of you to learn you keep exposing your Atheistic behavior.

Simple, you don't use DURATION to ask about the CREATION of something.

"Leap of faith" is an expression synonymous with "assumption", smart arse.