₦airaland Forum

hopefulLandlord:
please, admit you goofed and stop running around, a simple Google search is all you need

time is only measured with clocks, that does not mean that it doesn't exist outside it

time exists even in a "vacuum" BTW there's no such thing as the vacuum you seem to be referring to

, vacuum is a region in space without any particles,

such doesn't exist anywhere in our universe just like Stephen Hawkins said "Empty space isn't empty", please learn the difference between not measuring something and claiming it doesn't exist

hopefulLandlord:
Space and time go together, one doesn't exist without the other, without solar bodies space can be present and that goes with time, its kinda complicated but I've simplified it as much as I can

hopefulLandlord:
even WITHOUT solar bodies

hopefulLandlord:
oh uh! "time" exists everywhere in the universe

ambassagod:
NO!

It is measured within the effect of the solar system, "DAY AND NIGHT", brought to effect by the activities of solar bodies.

hopefulLandlord:
please, time exists outside our solar system, Yes/No?

hopefulLandlord:
please, you're still defining something into existence

You have freedom to define any damn fool thing you want, but just having a definition does not allow you to assert that something matching that definition exists.

Turn the bachelor example on its head. Imagine world power headed by an orange-headed despot decides, in a fit of madness next month (just for the sake of example, you see), to have all unmarried men of age either forcibly married, or killed, Now we have a valid definition of bachelor, but no actual bachelors to apply it to.

"Definitionalist" arguments are what you're giving here "outside time" "before time" "after time"

and don't make the naive mistake of thinking time is not independent of our solar system, that's a very bad mistake to make bro don't let it repeat itself

hopefulLandlord:


please, get me clear cuz it seems I'm talking through you, "uncaused first cause" doesn't mean it has to be eternal, does it?

my question is asking why this uncaused cause definitely has to be eternal, can't this uncaused cause cause something and still not be eternal? please take your time to read this post well

hopefulLandlord:
please, you can define anything but do not attempt to define it into existence

what does it mean to be "outside the scope of time"?

you're still falling back to first cause, I'm asking what makes you sure that this first cause is definitely eternal, you are jumping from first cause to eternal and back without answering the question

hopefulLandlord:
please, you're saying many things here

I'm asking why you're sure this "first cause" is eternal

I think the question is simple enough, what makes you so sure that first cause is definitely eternal?

hopefulLandlord:
please, keyword there is eternal, "uncaused" doesn't automatically lead to eternal please, you're just equivocating

hopefulLandlord:
please you've said a lot without answering, what makes you so sure that whatever the first cause is is actually "eternal"

Simply because, if an entity that is presented to be a "first cause" is actually caused, it means it is simply "AN EFFECT TO A CAUSE"

hopefulLandlord:
moment of revelation indeed

if anyone needs to know why man created god, that person just needs to read your sermon up there lol

I wonder how man created "a self eternal Uncaused cause". SIR, I am pushed to ask, are you okay (Not an insult but a simple question that demands an answer)

Anyway, I bring this up in our ongoing debate!

spacetacular:
Life is like that. Curiosity keeps us going and gives us cause to live. But at some point atheism stops being curious but simply concludes. So what then is the essence of life to an atheist?

hopefulLandlord:
so what made you sure this "First Cause" is also eternal?

hopefulLandlord:
you've not been talking like someone who's read the book, I think you just googled now and got some info otherwise we shouldn't have had a back and forth on this from the first time I mentioned Krauss because I've said what he means by nothing is NOT what you would agree with him on, you can scroll up and see what I'm talking about

"Self-Eternal", so what's the proof that this first cause is eternal? what does "eternal" mean?
could you elucidate?

hopefulLandlord:
I'm not in any way derailing, my point is that I've NOT seen any atheist deny first cause,

you said there are "many" as a counter to that, the onus is now on you to mention those, inability to do that proves there's NO atheist that denies first cause!

I mentioned Krauss and you've not read the book but concluded that what he's referring to nothing is the same as yours, having proven that is not the case your point has no leg to stand on until you mention them

this is very simple and I wonder why its proving difficult for you

[let me reiterate that I'm agnostic to first cause and so are all atheists I know

please we've wasted too many a time on this, names of those atheists please..

ambassagod:
So, now since you have helped me to debunk those "Everything came from Nothing" lies, I gotta point you to the below. So you review your opinion and know which way to follow.

So, to take off, you have to tell me if you AGREE OR NOT. If you agree that there is a (Self-eternal) UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE(GOD, until you disagree with my proposition of GOD) through which everything came into existence, THEN WE CAN STOP THE DEBATE. If you disagree, then you ask for my proofs, which I will have to provide

spacetacular:
Hey Jackbizzle this right here is what a debate ought to be and not your sorry excuse for one.

Loving it!

I see someone being dodgy on "nothing". Good stuff here.

hopefulLandlord:
okay, like I've repeated many times over, what Krauss means by nothing is NOT what you mean by nothing

you're now free to mention another atheist out of the " many atheists" that agree with your definition of nothing and said we came from nothing

remember, "there are many, even many on Nairaland"

CatfishBilly:
Why are you moving the goalposts?
Show me a reputable scientific journal that called the research a fraud. Stop running about. If a research is a fraud, a scientific journal calls it out, not pained theists.


You asked for my own personal research and conclusion and I submitted them, did I ever call it scientific?
What is wrong with you?

spacetacular:
I am quite content with reading comments and not having mine responded to. I am not addicted to this place unlike some of you here.

hopefulLandlord:
this is pure gish gallop

have you read Lawrence Krauss's book? if yes, can you tell us what he means by "Nothing"?

if that's the definition of "Nothing" you want to hang dearly on, then that's not what Krauss means by Nothing, Please Richrich717, you've read the book, can you please educate Ambassagod on what Krauss means by Nothing?

spacetacular:
...

The study is rich. I only extracted a few things to show YOU DID NOT READ IT.

CatfishBilly:
Cretin, stop quoting me.
Fuckkking imbecil_e.
Fuckkking retar_d

hopefulLandlord:
Ambassagod, I hope we are not wasting our time here?

are you here to define god as first cause?

please I'm not here for meaningless wordgames

ask those atheists what they mean by "nothing" because its definition varies from person to person and I'm not redefining "COMMON AND GLOBAL" terms to suite me, what Krauss means by nothing in his book isn't what you would agree as nothing, which is what I'm talking about, I think you've not even read the book which explains the confusion

"First Cause" is simply a foggy term that neither I see no sense in arguing against nor agree with

you do not in an argument define things into existence then claim some points on the fact that your opponent didn't argue against it

what is "First Cause"? aren't we moving in circles here?

I Still say, again, I'm agnostic to "first cause"

BTW I wonder what's so difficult in mentioning those " Many Atheists" that claim nothing, we need to check out what those atheists mean