₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
It seems to me my last post was too long for you to bother to read.

Actually I did. I haven't fully read your last one though as you still don't seem to understand and the first paragraph or so were enough to show this.
What is "existence"? What is "life"? What is "meaning"? How do they tie into the physical universe?

Unless you can comprehensively explain exactly what they are, your equation is totally and utterly meaningless.

KAG:
If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders.

What a beautiful analogy. Bravo!!!

@DeepSight. Your problem is that you are trying to base your argument on mathematics when you do not know what the factors are. You cannot state that 0+1-1=0 when you cannot state with clarity what you are attributing those numbers to.
It's fuzzy mathematics.
Sure, the equation adds up as an equation but when taken into context with what 0 or 1 actually represents (wild conjecture), it falls down spectacularly.

As for your earlier comment regarding Buddhism and nothingness. You seem not to know a lot about Nirvana. In essence, it is unexplainable in the human language - but in layman's terms, "nothingness" or "beyond nothingness" is about the closest that we can come to explaining it. In Nirvana, the human faculties do not exist. The mind does not exist. The Universe does not exist. Nothing exists. Yet those things don't just not exist. Nothing doesn't exist itself. It is the "nothing of nothing". Now, whichever way you look at it and however much proponents of Buddhism may refute it, that is in effect - nothingness.

By the way, you shoot yourself in the foot with this argument:

Nothingness by its very definition does NOT EXIST AT ALL.

It makes the final 0 in your equation incorrect. You have to attribute a positive number to it unless you acknowledge Nirvana as I have described it. And if you attribute a positive number to it, then you have to ascribe a positive number to the end of the equation you use to describe Mazaje's purpose. After all, if there is no nothingness, how can there be any zero?

LMAO. "Academic nonsense"?

Yes. Academic nonsense that has a solid foundation in logic and proof.
Whereas your claim is based in the fantasy world of the ignorant.

When are you going to start being useful to your Master(God)?

I could ask the same. Do you think that he put you on this planet just to swallow any old drivel?

noetic17:
Since Paul planted those churches, he MUST have been writing to them regularly.

It is doubtful. A letter was a very expensive thing to send and would take months to get to the receiver.

But there are other letters attributed to Paul that did not make the Bible. Amongst them:

    * Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for a time in the Armenian Orthodox)
    * Epistle to the Laodiceans (found in Codex Fuldensis)
    * Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul (addressed to Paul, not written by him)
    * Epistle to the Alexandrians

Also, referring to this:

If Paul was our only source for info on Jesus. .

1) We would not have the identity of Jesus's mother
2) We would not be aware that Jesus was from Galilee
3) We would not know that Jesus was baptized
4) We would not know that Jesus taught in Parables
5) We would not know that Jesus performed miracles
6) We would not know that Jesus ate with sinners
7) We would not know that Jesus confronted some Pharisees
8 ) We would not know that Jesus entered Jerusalem and overturned tables in the temple

Actually, if "Paul" was our only source of info, we would know about all the above.
Because the liklihood is that the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke.
Although Paul didn't write Acts, the author obviously has some knowledge of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke-Acts

If we are taking the Letters alone though, it is no suprise that they do not contain the points in the quote. They are technical letters concerning the running of the Churches. It would probably already be assumed that the recipient of the letter would know about the life of Jesus.

Apart from the statements I've already made, the whole conjecture that Christ survived the crucifixion ignores one very important point.

Christ was crucified by the Romans.

It didn't matter if the Christians wanted him alive. The Romans wanted him dead. He was subject to a Roman punishment under Roman supervision. He would not have been taken down from the cross unless the Romans were sure that he was dead.

Nirvana is NOT a state of Nothingness.

OK. I had Nirvana explained to me by a Buddhist Monk when I visited a temple.

His words when I asked him what it was were "Nirvana is not even nothing. It is beyond nothingness. Even nothingness does not exist."

As it's hard to comprehend a state that is "not even nothingness", I believe that the statement I made stands as it is and is certainly fitting in the context that it has been used here.

And I agree with KAG. It is the ultimate in nihiilism.

Deep Sight:
Here is the irrefutable equation -

0 + 1 - 1 = 0

The human being is an object. Whatever came before or came after are concepts. Although meaning is a concept, it is irrevocably tied in with the object that it is associated with. You cannot mix concepts and objects in the same equation and call it irrefutable.
Not only that but you cannot apply a mathematical figure to a concept and claim it to be absolute proof in this case for the simple fact that a concept is a thought or idea. Sure in the context of perceived reality with defineable objects you may be able to prove a pretty solid argument. But in an argument that contains unknown concepts such as eternity and being? No way.

I POSITIVELY CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME JUST ONE CONCEPT THAT AROSE FROM NOTHINGNESS.

Concepts are not infinite. They all have beginnings. They may be affected by other factors but that doesn't mean that they are created by them.

What do you mean I haven't said anything?

You're trying to prove that life is meaningless if it begins with nothing and ends with nothing by using mathematics.
You simply can't do that.

Like I said - meaning is a concept. A concept can be created from nothingness. It can also die into nothingness. But whilst it is kept alive by the conceiver, that concept exists.

So the mathematical formula could just as well be: Nothing ----> Meaning/Purpose -----> Nothing

It's mathematically flawed.

Meaning is only a concept not an object.

Although I don't believe that everything ends in death, I see it as irrelevant.
Life is meaningful if you make it meaningful. It's as simple as that.

^ it would be amusing if both mazaje or myself were committed Christians.

We are not.

LOL. A Muslim who's whole life's yearning is to go and pray to a rock in Mecca, criticizes Christianity?

The irony is amazing.

By the way. You even managed to get the Bible passages wrong. Go and look them up in their original Greek.

Niyi53:
Its just that you dont want to reason the line of my argument is the fall of your religion.
Explain the resemblance that occured btw jesus and jonah!

LMAO. My religion? Who said that I'm a Bible believer?
You're mistaken.

As for the resemblances between Jesus and Jonah, Jesus was made to fit the prophesies.
That rather screws up your religion. It means that your book was based on a fabrication.

davidylan:
3. Assuming God did not make me with magic dust, how were YOU created?

Well, it's like this David: When a Mummy and Daddy love each other. . .

And the Appendix, David?

What is that?

I mean, it must have a use if we're perfect. Admittedly mine burst and had to be removed, but if it was left in, what would it's benefits have been?

@DD And it's not?
Even though a human embryo has a tail just as all mammals do?

Of course, you're different. God sprinkled some magic ju-ju dust and "POOF", there you appeared, formed as you are now.

How about Wisdom Teeth?

davidylan:
This is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that humans are the product of evolution?

What is a coccyx?

It's the English language guy. It has rules and words have meanings.
You can't make it up to suit yourself.

If we were created perfect, we would still be in the trees, foraging for nuts.
DavidDylan, of course, would still be in the mud at the bottom of the ocean.

But alas, we weren't created perfect and have had to adapt to our surroundings.
The physical world changes and so does everything in it. To deny it is ridiculous.

Noetic: Your dictionary definition proves nothing.

Something can be awe-inspiring or terrifying without being angry.
Terrifying and angry most certainly do not mean the same thing as you claim.

I am sure any literal observer would see that "awe terrifying" is synonymous with ANGER.

KAG:
No, Nietzsche was actually an existentialist.

I believe that's open to interpretation. A lot of people will argue both corners. Some will vehemently deny it and some will say that he was. Me, I'd say that he was but that he was also an existentialist - I believe that the big problem with Nietzsche is that he tended to float about. One moment, nihilist, next existentialist, next post-modernist. There can be no doubt that he is well known for nihilism though. 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H2

Again, no. His philosophical ideas were incredibly sane. Yes, he had a mental breakdown - precipitated by the cruelty shown to a horse), but that ad hominem of yours shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss the validity of his writings.

"A mental breakdown"? The guy went totally insane.
As to dismissing the validity of his writings - another problem with Nietzsche is that he dismissed a lot of them himself. He'd theorise but then destroy the concept a little later down the line. Yes, a lot of philosophers rehypothesize their work, but Nietzche teneded to do this quite often. It is therefore hard to take anything as valid when he himself had a habit of disowning his own theory. I have to admit that I find him infuriating - because of this, reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, I kept wondering if his heart was really in the work and wether or not he would repudiate it halfway through. To tell the truth, not only that but I found it incredibly hard to follow - I picked it up thinking it was going to be along the lines of Plato's Republic. How wrong I was. . Like some of the critics, I believe at that time, his writing was deliberately ambiguous - pointing yet again at how hard it is to nail him down.
I do find him to be totally erratic and that's why I can't give him a whole lot of credence.

Finally, it may or may not be difficult to pick the "good" from the "bad" (whatever that means) in his works, but his influene on Hitler was arguably considerably less than the influence the likes of Martin Luther had on the Nazi leader.

Right, but the Ubermensch/Untermensch theory did help to fuel the Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, atrocity in Russia and the Holocaust. True, Nietzsche's work was never meant to be used as such and he would probably have been horrified to find it abused so but it does go to show how it can be misread.

Also, no, Greek tragedy wasn't about nihilism. Nietzsche being a brilliant philologist was probably one of the most aware of the facets of Greek tragedy - not that he was presenting a literal history in The Birth of Tragedy

How so not about Nihilism? Nihilism was the counter-weight to the Olympian dream, was it not? Was not the "terror" in the quote a reference to nihilism?

You've read the earlier quote all wrong.

If I have I'll put my hand up to that. But then as I'm no fan of Nietzsche, cut me some slack.

LOL.

Don't worry about me dieing in this state. I'm perfectly happy knowing that at least I've be trying to keep my eyes open and not stumbled through life blindly.

Seriously, you dispute the facts in my post? Even though they occur every day and have been doing so for millions of years? Even with concrete evidence? Have you never seen a meteorite streak across the sky yourself? I know I have countless times. You dispute the fact that there are bodies that can move without need for a Prime Mover?



I think you may need more than a "little" time to get back here with anything worthwhile.

OLAADEGBU wrote:

One should not carelessly follow a personable religious leader merely because he "preaches Jesus" or urges audiences to "receive the Spirit."

Like the Pope?

Kay 17:
the grand assumption for the Prime Mover, is an answer that raises more questions.

Isn't there the possibility of other movers with an area of specialization?

No. Then they wouldn't be Prime Movers. They would just be Other Movers.

What is the origin of the this Prime Mover?

That is the whole point of the philosophy regarding the Prime Mover - it has no origin. It is the starting point. It is also known as the Unmoved Mover.

for such a complex designer who pays so much attention to every detail, who then could have designed the designer to match this sophistication?

Again, the Prime Mover is the starting point. Nothing created or designed it.

Be aware though that the concept of a Prime Mover is fundamentally flawed - there are many examples in Physics where bodies move without being moved; therefore not needing a Prime Mover to get them going.

KAG:
"The Greek knew and felt the terror and horror of existence. That he might endure this terror at all, he had to interpose between himself and life the radiant dream-birth of the Olympians. . ." (The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche)

Nietzche was a nihilist and a lot of his philosophy is literally the delusion of a madman - he was certified insane aged 45. It's very hard to pick the good from the bad in his work. Adolf Hitler tried and look what happen there.

The Greeks were no different from their predecessors. Singling them out as the inventors of nihilism (which was what Greek Tragedy basically was) to give self-affirmation shows how little Nietzche was aware of the subject. Since the dawn of time, man has been looking for meaning.
Interestingly, Nietzche also stated that the decline of Christianity fuelled nihilism. That seems to stand at odds with the original quote - the dream of Olympus fuelled Tragedy and therefore nihilism. My opinion is that nihilism is more fuelled or extinguished by culture rather than religion.

Nietzche's philosophy on Eternal Recurrence has always been of great interest to me though. It's also an interesting theory to throw into this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_recurrence

JaaizTech:
In theory many meteors are moving in random motion in space all with a probability of hitting the earth; but yet none has hit the earth; do you think it is all by accident or luck that the earth has not been hit by any of those meteors!. There must have been a master planner; master controller and coordinator.

Actually, plenty have hit the Earth. The best theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs is a giant meteor strike. There's plenty of evidence of meteor strikes hitting the Earth. In fact, every day, thousands hit the Earth; although 99.9% of them are too small to do any damage. Occasionally, big ones do get through though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event#Modern_impact_events

One thing you also fail to take into account is the Earth's moon. At one time, that collided with this planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

And let us not forget the fact that the Moon actually shields the Earth from many meteor strikes.

Finally:

Look around you my dear friend; look into the sky and see the Millions of stars floating in it; each one bigger than the earth; moving around in perfection with no collision.

Collisions happen all of the time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8195467.stm

The Universe is nowhere near as perfect and peaceful as you may think it is. It is a place of constant change.

^^ Question:

The goal in Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana.

Nirvana is an absolute state of nothingness.

So would you say that a Buddhist's life is empty and purposeless and without meaning?

Not all Muslims believe that Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law Ali, was the first Imam.
Likewise not all Christians believe in Original Sin.

To the guy who wrote this:

"Christianity believes in the "Original Sin" and that we all inherited the sin of Adam hence we are all born "sinful" while Islam teaches that we are all born "sinless" and with a clean slate. We are responsible only for what we ourselves have done. , Christianity basically "Blames you for something you did not do (Adam)"

It's about as accurate as if I wrote:

Islam believes that Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law Ali, was the first Imam. Muslims also believe that the first three caliphs were illegitimate.

MyJoe:
Bertrand Russel did not believe in the existence of God yet he was an epitome of goodness and the grace of God abounded in his life.

No. Although a great mind, he had his failings just like everyone else.

Niyi53:
i believe jesus to be an ordinary prophet for the children of israelite.

Sorry. You can't have it both ways. You can't take the meaning of the Bible and just throw it out of the window because it doesn't fit with your own religion.
Not only is that illogical but it's a fabrication built on a fabrication. That makes you double-screwed. It's also why Islam contains even more dogma than Christianity - building a house of sand on top of another house of sand means that without someone trying to hold the ocean back, the whole thing will just collapse.

Deep Sight:
That you perceive something whilst you are within the physical dimension does not mean that it has its existence within physical matter.

I never claimed that it did.

But if you perceive something in this dimension it must have some sort of existence in this dimension.
Otherwise you wouldn't be able to perceive it would you?

Deep Sight:
What dimension do such things exist in?

In this one.

The number One is not physical is it?
And how about Red or Blue? They are not physical are they?

Yet we percieve them in this dimension.

Niyi53:
you cannot say positively that these were the exact words spoken by jesus. these books were written at a time when the theory of crucifixion, invented by paul, had come to be accepted by the majority of the christians.

True. But then why bother with the crucifixion story at all? As I've already stated, if you don't believe the general gist of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that Jesus died on the cross, any argument regarding the following specifics is redundant.

I will try to give you a comparison:

"I read a Marvel comic that said that Superman is a superhero who can fly."

Now let's say that some people believe in Superman and some don't.
The important argument is that Superman is just a fictional character whilst others would argue that he is real. The fact that he can or cannot fly is irrelevant.
If you do believe that Superman is real, you only have the word of the Marvel comic for reference. Therefore, you can only go by what is in it's pages and follow that to be the truth as that is the only place you have your knowledge of Superman from.
If you don't believe that Superman exists, it's totally irrelevant as to wether or not he can fly. Why argue that he can't fly when you know he doesn't exist in the first place?

Now swap Superman for Jesus and swap flying for the crucifixion.

True there is a third way of looking at it and stating that Jesus was just a historical figure who was crucified and lived, but not only is there absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, it defeats the whole purpose of his place in the religions and is therefore also irrelevant.

And finally, there is a fourth way - that Christ was not a physical figure or a historical one but a spiritual one.

So to recap - if you believe in Christ as a god figure, you have to believe that he was crucified and resurrected as that was what was written. One doesn't have to believe in a physical ressurection though - a spiritual one is good enough for those who believe that he was a spiritual figure.
If you don't believe in Christ as a god figure, nothing regarding his life matters and any argument promoting something that he did or did not do is irrelevant.