A001:

You obviously don't understand anything you've been saying.

The scientists that postulated the Big Bang model believe the Universe expanded from nothing, and many physicists around the world hold that view.

The Big Bang postulates the Universe expanded from an initial state of singularity. If you were to witness that state, you'd call it nothing because you can't see the subatomic particles in the state.

Your posts show you don't even have an idea of what's called the Big Bang.

You're just a clown.

Can you please stop embarrassing yourself. The Big Bang Theory tells you the Universe emerged from "something" - a quantum singularity not nothing or void that you are describing. This is getting laughable.

A001:

You've not read Krauss' book, Otem's book, or even the books of Lao Tzu, who created Daoism.

I tap from the wisdom of these great minds, not a nonentity on Nairaland that calls the Big Bang, one of the most successful theories in Physics, metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

You're just babbling. This one na graduate?
Lols, Nigeria's education system is a joke.

*You tap wisdom from mystical philosophy which are nonsense. This explains why you keep reasoning the way you do.


* Krauss book was flawed and provided zero evidence. It's not different from me telling you unicorn exists. Go and read reviews about his book from actual scientist.


* Who the hell is Otem?


*Taoism is a religion. Negro stop being ignorant. You condemn religious folks but believe in mystical philosophy. Can you even hear yourself?

A001:

His book is flawed to you that don't know the basics of Physics? This one na clown.

I don't need to waste my first time with someone that considers the Big Bang metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

Lols, joke of the century.

* Can you show me where is said anything about the Big bang being mumbo jumbo?

* I don't know the basics of physics lol. Personal attacks are not doing you any favours.

* How can you call yourself a Physicists yet doesn't know the meaning of metaphysics? You are begining to sound weird and a liar. Big bang is a metaphysical hypothesis in precise sense. Negro you are not a Physicists. Stop lying. What school did you graduate from?

A001:

Where did he tell you he's a physicist? No physicist will ridicule a great discipline like Physics in that manner.

When you don't know the basics about a subject, the sensible thing is to keep quiet and observe, not saying trash like "it's all metaphysics", "nothing special about physicists".

From his posts, it's clear he doesn't know what's called the Big Bang. Lols. He's a joker.

He has not made any contribution to the discussion. Just mere noise.

* The only thing you have talked about since yesterday is false equivalence. You have talked about Otem(who the hell is that), Taoism (a Chinese religion centered on metaphysics) and a flawed book. What exactly have you contributed?

A001:
Learn what's called the Big Bang first and learn the basics of Physics before embarrassing yourself in public on a subject you don't know jack about.

I'm sure the Big Bang is all metaphysics to you. And this one na graduate? Clown

Learn to read and understand. You don't know how to read.

* The krauss you have been shouting about his book is flawed. Next time you better not believe each and every mumbo jumbo you read.

Bombblacks:




* You keep shouting about krauss lol. All he wrote in that book that is confusing you is untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre existing complex of entities which includes variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum etc. He does not explain in what way these entities pre existed the coming into being of the universe, why they existed in the first place and he provided no experimental or observational process whereby they could test those wide speculations of the supposed things that generated the universe. Tell me how can you test what existed before the universe existed? negro you can’t. What he is presenting is not tested science, It’s metaphysical speculation mixed with mystical mumbo jumbo.

monerozi5590:
Bombblack and If yes, you guys should respect each other and end the argument please.

There's no argument here, Just trying to educate so that next time someone will not ask us us to drop solid evidence that unicorn doesn't exist and then call you ignorant.

A001:

Don't waste my time with unnecessary mentions. Post silly comments about a subject you don't know anything about is an insult.

Ok then.

A001:

I don't have time to read your nonsense. Your silly argument shows you don't even know what's called the Big Bang.

I don't have time to waste with you. Educate yourself first on the subject before embarrassing yourself further in public.

Nice one.

A001:
I'm sure the fool doesn't even what's called the Big Bang. It's all metaphysics to him. And this one calls himself a graduate? Lols.

How Did The Entire Universe Come From Nothing?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/27/ask-ethan-how-did-the-entire-universe-come-from-nothing/?sh=29e8aee62c59

Fool? Calls himself a graduate?


What called for all those personal attacks? Have insulted or something.

A001:

Lols, you're very confused and ignorant. I don't have time to waste with someone that doesn't have basic knowledge about science.

There's physics and there's metaphysics. I can see your quality of education is so shallow calling experts in Physics metaphysicists.

There's nothing special in award-winning physicists that have written their names on the sands of time through their works, but there's something special about a nonentity like you.

Tell me another joke. He doesn't even know what cosmology, a branch of Physics, is.

Better you keep quiet when you don't jack about a topic of discussion before embarrassing yourself in public.

Confusing cosmology in metaphysics with cosmology in Physics, when everyone familiar with the history of Physics and the history of science knows all the fields and disciplines came from philosophy including science.

Your IQ and education are questionable when you mix up cosmology in metaphysics with cosmology in Physics even after seeing a renowned scientist like Prof Krauss mentioned.

Anyway, you've not said anything tangible other than metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

Facts don't care about your emotions and your fixed world-view based on ignorance and shallow thinking.

The concept of Nothing or Vacuum is a solid explanation on the Beginning of the Universe, which could even have no beginning as some philosophers and scientists say.

* Why do you like typing long sentences with zero substantial meanings. You keep rambling on and on and on like the longer you go the more you feel good about yourself. Learn to say things in few words.

* You keep shouting about krauss lol. All he wrote in that book that is confusing you is untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre existing complex of entities which includes variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum etc. He does not explain in what way these entities pre existed the coming into being of the universe, why they existed in the first place and he provided no experimental or observational process whereby they could test those wide speculations of the supposed things that generated the universe. Tell me how can you test what existed before the universe existed? negro you can’t. What he is presenting is not tested science, It’s metaphysical speculation mixed with mystical mumbo jumbo.

A001:

Yea, I don't know the difference between actual science and metaphysics as a physicist, just like award-winning physicists that wrote books on Nothing.

But you, an ignorant person, that doesn't what cosmology and quantum physics are and doesn't know jack about Physics, do.

Ignorance is your problem, and you're even arrogant about it, which is why you assume matter (everything you see) has always existed like that even before the Big Bang.

Your knowledge of the subject is very limited. I don't have time to waste with you.

If you're not just rambling, you'd have a presented a solid argument against Nothing (yes, there's actually one) other than metaphysics mumbo-jumbo.

Maybe you just learned that term.

Anyway, you'll find proponents for Nothing among scientists that study the beginning and history of the Universe — cosmologists and astrophysicists.

They're just telling you before space, time, and matter were created by the Big Bang, a Vacuum or Nothing existed.

If you feel otherwise, tell me exactly what existed before space, time, and matter were created by the Big Bang.

Anyway, I don't expect someone that doesn't know who a cosmologist is to know. Your ignorance is legendary, the stuff of comedy.

* There's no argument for the concept of nothing so why should I give you anything to refute it. This is like asking me to give you a solid argument against Unicorn or fairies. Come on do better and stop wasting both of our time .


* You are adding things I never said and calling me arrogant lol. Just come out and admit you don't know the meaning of metaphysics because it obvious. Cosmologist, ontologist and others are all part of physical metaphysics which involves the real nature of Time, Space, Laws of Nature, Matter etc. Sir You are actually the ignorant one here.


*There's no difference between you believing in a mystical metaphysical notion and those religious folks.

A001:

You're just commenting on issues ignorantly. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy that deals with the origin and development of the universe.

It's one of the many fields in Physics.

It's the business of people like Lawrence Krauss who is an expert in cosmology.

Quantum physics deals with the study of particles and phenomena in the subatomic or quantum realm and is a branch of Physics, not metaphysics.

Everything is special about physicists as they're some of the most intelligent people on the planet. When talking about the nature of the Universe including its beginning, I consider the views of physicists more seriously than your own view as a layman.

Also, I consider the view of philosophers like Socrates, Lao Tzu, Otem, and past humans like Atum (who taught the ancient Egyptians how to build those wondrous pyramids) more seriously than the view of a person that doesn't know jack about Physics or what's called cosmology or quantum physics.

As said earlier, Nothing is a fascinating concept that has a lot of depth. Unless you know with certainty what existed before the Big Bang, it'd be foolish to dismiss Nothing or Vacuum.

* The concept of nothing belongs to metaphysics.

*The problem here is that you believe in every metaphysics mumbo jumbo you see. You don't know the difference between actual science and metaphysics. Cosmology and ontology are branches of metaphysics.


*Metaphysics is unscientific and redundant. I've always been and remain deeply sceptical of metaphysical arguments. They have the same major flaw as religion

*Asking "What exited before the Big Bang" is like asking "What is north of the North Pole." It's like asking "What is further center than the exact center." "Nothing" exists there because "there" doesn't exist.

A001:

I can see your knowledge of the subject is very limited. Philosophy is the mother of science, including Physics, and all kinds of knowledge.

That's why all physicists took some courses in Philosophy while in school.

Nothing or Void is a crucial concept for physicists, especially those that study the beginning of the Universe and cosmology generally.

That's why a physicist and cosmologist like Lawrence Krauss wrote the book entitled "A Universe from Nothing". In the quantum realm, something can arise from nothing, and that has been demonstrated empirically.

When Socrates said "all that I know is nothing", you must think he's foolish or ignorant.

In one of the writings of Otem, one of the past beings (who had lived on Earth in the ancient past) that gave the histories he's writing to him explained how during one of his explorations of different parts of the Universe, he did studies on the Beginning of the Universe and how he started freezing when he moved close to the Source of the Universe, which is a Vacuum.

He said all things in existence existed as One in that frozen state of unconsciousness in the Vacuum in the Beginning before the expansions.

If you're into Cosmology and/or Astrophysics, it'll be foolish to dismiss Nothing and these ideas.

I very much doubt you understand my previous reply.


* Physicists are philosophers lol.


* There's nothing special about physicists. Every human is a logical thinker. Bro you are a philosopher yourself.


* Cosmology and ontology are branches of metaphysics.


*Quantum realm is mumbo jumbo under metaphysics. Metaphysics is not an actual science hence my previous reply below.

Bombblacks:

It's not possible to argue against a question of metaphysics and ontology using arguments of physics.

A001:

Your understanding of issues is shallow. Before you dismiss the concept of Nothing, you must have definite knowledge of what existed before the Big Bang.

Do you? You think it's matter that has always existed before space and time came into existence?

Anyway, you can't answer these questions. He thinks physicists and philosophers that have written books on Nothing are dumb.

Lols

There's a reason why I called it mumbo jumbo. Nobody takes mysticism philosophy seriously. It's not possible to argue against a question of metaphysics and ontology using arguments of physics.

Magnoliaa:
Every inventions came from "nothing". Originally. Then those inventions go on to lead to countless of other creations.



That's how I understand it sha.

Far from it.

Magnoliaa:


No.


On a second read, actually, I got it.

Lol...it's crazy how the meaning was so simply obvious, yet I missed it because of the wording. Almost like it was written like that intentionally.

I really doubt you did.

Magnoliaa:



Can you elaborate on what this means?

It's just mystical philosophy mumbo jumbo.

Theflint1:
I think it's now 10m....the money he gets from just "thank you" each month go probably pass 10m per month. Most of these high-ranking civil servants don't necessarily have to be corrupt in the strictest sense for them to enjoy from being in the position they're.

On point.

Itsrm:
And just to add, the CJN officially earns 3.5m annually . The other judges of the supreme court probably earn less.

Make of this information what you will.

Naira or Dollar? No way a chief justice will be earning that amount annually.

Jodera:
If I were to do combined first 11 of my choice

Neuer

Alaba. Saliba. Boateng. Lahm

Partey. Schweini

Odegaard


Robben. Jesus. Ribery

Just a good half season and you are putting those Arsenal players in place of people who dominated club football. Odeggard, partey, Saliba really?

OhBritannia:
Let me get something straight.
So at the time when the media were busy dismantling Greenwood, where people in this thread were nailing Greenwood on the cross 😁😁😁😁 where others were defending him.

This girl was still opening her pussssy for greenwood and they were busy smashing 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁.

Just discovered that she is pregnant for greenwood and they are now back together.

I know greenwood is probably not innocent but it looks like the girl is a Nice girl and she is really in love 💕💕 with greenwood.

I hope he has changed for good and just love and respect this girl because like it or not, she has literally saved his career.

Read from a confirm source that she dropped all the charges and even refused to testify against him, and even the photos that leaked online were leaked by her sister and she was not aware. She has even gone against the wish of her family by accepting him back. She has done well for him.

Seeing a girl like this in this generation isn't easy, i hope greenwood realizes that he has got a Queen besides him. He should do well by her and worships her for the rest of his Life.

She saved his life whether you like it or not, she saved his life.

Stop trying to paint it like a good thing or genuine love. She's likely suffering from Stockholm syndrome and what this does is encourage more women to stay in abusive relationship instead of leaving and getting justice.

A001:

Other lower animals communicate without the use of spoken languages. Only humans are intelligent enough to evolve languages, and if you know human history well enough, you'd know all the languages spoken around the world today came naturally from some past humans just like it was some humans (not the environment) that invented all the programming languages in use today.

That's nature. Genetics. It's the same reason why many intelligent animals can't speak a language because of their nature (their genetical makeup).

We are saying the same thing. We created language to enable us communicate more effectively same way deaf people communicate with sign language. Language is not innate, it's something we created to aid communication. We developed a wide variety of systems to assign specific meaning to sounds, forming words and systems of grammar to create languages.


All animals make sounds which dey use in communicating. We are the only intelligent being who created language from those sounds.

A001:

So humans learnt their languages from their environment? Why didn't other intelligent primates like the chimpanzee also do so then since they're in the same environment?

Our first means of communication was likely not spoken words. Even before we developed languages, we have use various means to communicate. Cave, drawing is the oldest form of communication we know. We evolved to the point of being able to speak and then we eventually fine tuned it which resulted in language creation. Are you saying chimpanzee don't communicate with each other?

A001:

Nature versus nurture argument in epistemology in philosophy. I can see you subscribe to the nurture side of the argument.

In other words, you agree with philosophers like Aristotle, John Locke, and Ibn Sina who are proponents of the tabula rasa (blank slate) theory.

My own stance is some humans are born with certain innate knowledge (like the knowledge of right and wrong on some issues, languages) and some are not, but most humans are taught all the things they know by their parents, environment, etc.

So I believe both (not just one) sides of the argument are right.

On innatism, how do you think human languages arose from the environment? Some past humans were born with the languages we speak today.

The languages evolved from the human mind not the environment.

Also, it was some humans that first came up with the norms and moral values in use today in many parts of the world.

Thus, innatism and tabula rasa are both right.

I have read report on it and I disagree wholeheartedly that language is innate. Emperor Fredrick ran an experiment where he had some babies raised without anyone talking to them, limiting the people raising them to touch them only when necessary and as little as possible. He did this because he wanted to see if they would grow up to speak their innate language when they matured, All the babies eventually died. Another experiment was carried out by taking two babies to live with a mute woman. The babies ended up being mute. They are many examples that shows how human behavior is shaped largely by the environment they grew up in. Experimentation have always favoured nurture over nature. Infact every argument for nature is easily debunked.

A001:

End of discussion. No dey argue meaningless argument. Environment is just one of the factors that shaped humans. But still, humans created culture, society, ethics, morality, religion shaped by genetics, environment.

You keep bringing up things nobody said and just run along with it. Can you point to my post where I said humans didn't create culture, society etc I hope now you realize you are the one arguing blindly and meaningless. what I told Roland was that humans are not born with the innate knowledge of what's good/bad or wrong/right. We get all of those from the environment we grew up in that shapes us and how we interprete things hence my example of a baby raised by monkeys will act,think and behave like one cause that's the kind of environment he grew up in. The first humans on earth made rules, regulations, and laws according to the environment they grew up and experienced at that particular set of time.

larride:


You dont know what you are talking about and have refused to learn even after you have been rightly corrected.

Is polygamy legal in Nigeria under the federal law? A simple yes or no will suffice.

A001:

Your argument is funny. So the environment created culture, norms, ethics, and morality for humans? Society fell from the sky? Lols. Which kind reasoning be this

The environment is what shaped humans to create Culture, society, ethics etc. Different people living in different environment have different norms, ethics, morality as well. You are still using your mumbo jumbo style of analysis.

BlueRayDick:


The point is unlike US, Nigeria doesn't operate the solely on federal/civil law; so u can't use the word "illegal" when talking about polygamy in Nigeria.

But it is indeed illegal under the federal law in Nigeria. Nigerians just used the loophole of traditional form of marriages to get round it. Saw way child marriage is illegal under federal law but northern states uses the loophole of Sharia to bypass it.

BlueRayDick:


I think u are confusing urself with semantics here . Raumdeuter is right , polygamy is legal in Nigeria . Why ? Because the legal system in Nigeria includes common law( the English law ) , customary law and sharia.

That is why u won’t see anybody prosecuted for practicising polygamy except he marries under common law which bars a man from having more than a wife.

When u say polygamy is not allowed in he USA , u are right cos it’s alien to their legal system .However u can’t say polygamy is not allowed in Nigeria cos our legal system which includes customary law and sharia actually makes it legal .

We are talking about civil and federal law in both countries. In both countries the government doesn't recognize polygamy and it's illegal. You cannot marry a 2nd wife in Nigeria if your marriage is registered in the Court. We are not talking about Traditional form of marriage.

A001:

Roland17 argument is very clear and has depth.

This environment you're talking about didn't just drop from heaven; it was created by some humans who were the forebears of modern humans.

Culture, religion, morality, ethics are all social constructs and man-made. These things condition humans and give us acceptable standards to behave in society.

So, past humans created the environment because they were capable of knowing what's right and what's wrong, and this environment does the conditioning and programming of modern humans.

Even without religion, you still know what's right and what's wrong. You don't need a book or a priest to tell you that certain actions are good or bad because culture, morality and ethics are enough as conditioning factors and can exist without a religion.

You're just arguing for the mere sake of it. No be everything you go dey argue.

Incest is wrong mainly because of the diseases and defects it can cause. Apart from that, most times, it messes up the child's life.

There are few exceptions, but for most people, it has bad consequences.

The premise of your argument falls apart just from your first sentence. The Environmental factors you are talking about existed Before even humans on earth so your theory that they where created by human is already dead on arrival. Cave men or the earliest men on earth behavior and pattern of reasoning was influenced by the environment they grew up in. Take a group of people from this century back to the ice age and watch how they will adapt to their environment, change their behavior, way of thinking and ideas to be able to survive. Their 21st century way of thinking and behavior will be eradicated in a short time. Stop all these mumbo jumbo type of analysis.


Environment factors and society determines what was wrong and right. Humans were not born with the innate knowledge of right and wrong. The environment and society determines that.


Nowhere did I tell you religion is the only factor used in determining what's right and wrong. Stop bringing in what you never saw in my post.


All the arguments I have seen against incest hinges on birth defects. Now what if they don't want children, they are using protection, it's between same sex etc This will even led to a bigger question. Should all people with genetic Disorders that can be transmitted to their offspring not be allowed to procreate. Hemophilia, Huntington's Disease, Marfan syndrome etc

Roland17:


Speaking about humans and the environment, I still maintain that it is human behavior that influences the environment before the latter influences the former. Without human behavior there is no environment. Human behavior creates social constructs and acceptable standards that promote communal living.

The human brain is designed to essentially ask the question “WHY”? Do you have kids? If you do, when your kid was a baby and learning to walk and had no understating of morality, did your baby try to go touch or do something you know they shouldn’t be doing? Did your
baby at any point push boundaries trying to see your reaction?

The answer is most likely yes and that is because, the human brain from birth is designed to be inquisitive, it is never “conditioned” as you proposed. Does the environment influence humans? Yes but Human behavior is integral to defining society and the environment.

I actually think it's the opposite. Our environment is what creates, shapes our behavior and the way we think or acts. I believe a baby raised by monkeys from day 1 will see it self as a monkey, think and act like one. They have been experimentation carried out on it as well.

raumdeuter:


That's news to me that Polygamy is not legal in Nigeria

I've never seen anyone prosecuted for Polygamy and many people are openly polygamous

Yes I mean under traditional marriage

Yes Africans practice polygamy under traditional form of marriage. Legally it's not allowed in Nigeria same as in the u.s.