₦airaland Forum

HellVictorinho:
You don't agree with me,fine.
You talked about maths and I replied you but you are still condemning me on this.
Well,I know why you are doing this.

HellVictorinho, it is not about whether we agree or disagree! We do not have to agree. It would suffice that we understand one another, even if we disagree! I cannot be insisting that human beings have free will, and at the same time be taking your free will from you!

I never asked you to prove anything to me mathematically! Please go back and read what I wrote! I can assure you that it has not disappeared!

gensteejay:
I think you just type these things without giving them much thought and deliberation. Why don't you slow down a bit to go through all you've said on this thread?

I concur. Please HellVictorinho. And note he specifically said "all you've said". And no one else's!

HellVictorinho:
But you want me to give you a mathematical model/analysis to show that there has never been a period when there was no activity whatsoever?

No I never! Please do not make me have to ask about your reading ability, considering I am the one you accused of having none!

To start with, I do not think you are capable of providing me with a "mathematical model/analysis to show that there has never been a period when there was no activity whatsoever". And even if you were capable, I doubt I would understand it!

I specifically mentioned your head, the wall and a headache. Something both of us could very easily understand!

HellVictorinho:
Give me the numbers,not the symbol.

No one is claiming infinity is a number. It is in fact infinity for the exact reason that it cannot be bound in numbers since there is always infinity plus a little bit more!

HellVictorinho:
The drugs caused you to sleep for approximately three days.
And you did it for a reason.

A reason subjective to me, and still within the remit of my free will. Or is it not?

HellVictorinho:
Goodness!!!!!
I know you are not a prisoner.
But we have jails for a reason.

But I am not in jail. Nor have I done anything to merit being jailed. But assuming I did do something to merit being jailed, I would still have asserted my free will in doing that thing which the consequence is imprisonment in a jail. One could even claim that it is my choice to be jailed since, and if, I knew the consequence of my freely chosen act was imprisonment in a jail.

Unless you just happen to be a tyrant who has the power to jail me without reason, that is, of course.

HellVictorinho:
The expectation here has to do with Man's tendency to think.
Stupidity is a level of intelligence.
Mental illness/Psychological disorder means something else.
Inactivity doesn't cause the functioning of your brain to stop.
Stones are not organisms.
And,I have somewhat stated that living things make choices in different ways.
But they have limits-Fact.
Can you choose to sleep for three days?

Mans tendency to think? Are you suggesting that you have not met a man without such tendencies?

Yes I can choose to sleep for three days if I decided to choose to do so. I can after all take enough sleeping pills to assist me, or bash my head so hard against a wall and be in stupor for three days or more, depending.

HellVictorinho:
I don't have to be the one commanding you.
Your freedom is subjective.

My freedom is subjective to me! When I start doing what you ask me to choose to do, I would be subjecting my freedom to you. I know which I would choose with my own subjective free will!

HellVictorinho:
Reduce your life span as a human being(the modern homo sapiens) now if you feel like.
In fact,decide not to eat for the next fifty days!!!!!

If I choose to do what you tell me to do, I would be abrogating my free will to you! That would not be me exercising my free will, but me enslaving myself to you, which is the exact opposite of me having any free will at all.

So, no thank you. I would rather exercise my own free will, which at this very moment is to eat today, tomorrow and the days after that, and to extend my lifespan as long as I free willy possibly can!

HellVictorinho:
You are expected to choose reasonably because you have a brain.

Expected by whom or what? Who or what is to say I must not choose unreasonably?

HellVictorinho:
What you call choice is actually a function of your brain.

Really? Is the function of my brain not a choice? Are you suggesting I cannot choose to allow my brain to function stupidly or not at all?

HellVictorinho:
If an organism has no brain,it chooses because it
it feels like choosing.

I can't say I agree! A stone has no brain. Neither do stones have choice or feelings, as far as I know.

HellVictorinho:
Bacteria also choose but they can't choose to do much.

Little choice is still choice!

HellVictorinho:
The complexity of Man means Man will choose as he thinks and express what he his feeling like(informed/happy/unprepared/satisfied/etc).

And that denotes freewill. Including the choice to not choose to think or not to express what he feels or to feel nothing at all!

HellVictorinho:
There is no universal timetable but you know your limits.
That is what I mean.

Limits that I can at any point in time, with my freewill, choose to extend or reduce, at my own will!

Martinez19:
A lot are still arguing for borders both in the UK and America. In both cases, they are liberals, especially young liberals. Their reasons usually are "let them in and give them a better life," "it's unfair to shut our doors to desperate people that need help" etc.

No one, at least as a political party, is advocating open borders, Martinez19!

Please provide evidence so that I can be corrected.

Martinez19:
Legal or illegal immigrants? Legal or illegal immigration?

It seems that when liberals want to defend open border policies and paint it in a good light, they purposely fail to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration and legal and illegal immigrants by using the words "immigrants" and "immigration." When they do this, they list the good works of legal immigrants and subtly give the credit to both legal and illegal immigrants.

Cc. Auduku, budaatum, itchie, Temple1288

Is anyone still arguing for open borders? I have not personally seen anywhere it is!

HellVictorinho:
If they just CHOOSE not to do those things ,their brains will be checked.
And there is time for everything/every activity.

There is? I disagree. I may very well choose to do whatever I do at a time I also choose!

Do give examples though so I know what you mean.

HellVictorinho:
Didn't I mention time?
And where is psychology/psychiatry in all of this?
Oh,I forgot Economics,Religion, Education, etc
Humans can be complex,I know.
But,they remain humans.
You can't choose to be a human being,right?

I may not chose to be a human being, and by that, I hope you mean 'exist' since it would be absurd for you to mean choose whether I were a dog or a stone.

But I can, with my free will - which I do have, provided it is agreed that I exist as a human being, or a living thing at least - choose what sort of human being I am, and how I respond to stimuli. That choice is not prewired into me or I wouldn't have a choice in the matter, at anytime whatsoever.

LordReed:
Well we kind of. If the universe has been expanding for billions of years it stands to reason that it was a lot smaller than it is now and the math shows it would have had to be a singularity at which point the laws of physics as we know them now couldn't be reasonably sustained. But of course this is a mystery as we can't yet go back in time to confirm it and may never be able to.

Kind of? An admission that we do not know, though it's probable. A religious person could also argue that it is probable that the singularity was brought into existence by something that pre-existed it.

We after all do not know whether there was a point where nothing existed prior to the existence of a single thing, including the pre-existing nothing', which could be argued was a 'thing' in its own right.

HellVictorinho said something similar in one of his posts. And now that he seems to have learnt to discuss, as opposed to assume he is the only one who can read, I hope you don't mind me inviting him in here.

00Godwin:
I wouldn't ask if someone has not told me so. Besides, I'm an atheist too. I put the questions as though I'm the one who asked me.

I understand. You are speculating. And we are responding regardless of whether you are an atheist or not.

So please continue. It's interesting at least, or we would not bother.

LordReed:
Nobody knows what caused the universe to expand from a singularity. We don't even know how the singularity formed in the first place. Also the concept of a nothing is a religious one, scientists have a hard time conceptualising what a nothing would be like.

Do we even know there was a singularity?

HellVictorinho:
If they just CHOOSE not to do those things ,their brains will be checked.
And there is time for everything/every activity.

But that's not true! If I fast when I was hungry, or not run from danger, you will not be checking my brain! You most definitely would not be checking my brain if I refused to compete with you or develop sexual behaviours. Or at least, we do not necessarily check the brains of human beings who refuse to do these things! Most times, we just let such people be.

Still, the fact that they get to choose shows free will, whether we agree with their expression of it or not.

HellVictorinho:
You might call it a substance.
In fact, a gas.
Sorry,it must be a molecule in H2O!!!

Yes, it could be all of those things, including it being an element with atomic number 8. A member of the chalcogen group on the periodic table, a highly reactive nonmetal, and an oxidizing agent that readily forms oxides with most elements as well as with other compounds, or by mass the third-most abundant element in the universe, that at standard temperature and pressure two atoms of it bind to form dioxygen, and that it is a colorless and odorless diatomic gas with the formula O. Now imagine if I see no H₂O and claimed there was therefore no Oxygen!

What's your point?

HellVictorinho:
Alright, I will explain.
Biologically, humans are wired to do certain things including: moving, feeding, developing feelings(in response),competing,adapting,developing sexual behaviors,exchanging gases,etc.
So,they are expected to do certain things by default and not because they actually had a choice.

But this is not true! Human beings are not wired to move, feed, develop feelings (in response), compete, adapt, develop sexual behaviors and exchange gases, though I'm inclined to let that last one fly.

Human beings may chose to not do the things you claim they are wired to. And they may chose to do them in response to non-related stimulus. I.e. not move, not eat and so on even when the more appropriate response might be to move, or eat etc. Does that alone not show free will?

HellVictorinho:
Why are you bringing up the possibility of miscommunication/human limitations?
I know all that too.
But we can be certain of certain things, right?
Is oxygen not a chemical element ?

Because it is relevant! And yes, to the best of my knowledge, Oxygen is a chemical element.

HellVictorinho:
First,if 'Nothing' exists nowhere,it means you can always find something,somewhere.
The 'Everything' I'm talking about is the one you assumed to exist.
Imagine this:If I tell you that all my properties are in a box(they could be anything), wouldn't it be illogical for you to ask me if I have anything left that is not in the box?

I don't think so. I'd just be asking a question, a logical one at that. After all, you may have something that may not be part of "all your properties", though I'm more likely to ask what your properties that are in a box particularly are, first.

Would it be improper for me to ask, rather than ignorantly assume what you mean, or just to clarify that I understand what you might possibly mean by "all your properties are in a box"?

I don't agree that 'Nothing' exists nowhere", means "one can always find something, somewhere". I may not search well enough and assume something exists where nothing exists, or that nothing exists just because I perceived nothing with my faulty abilities to perceive. And that apart from the fact that I'd have to first define what is meant by "nothing", "nowhere", "exists" and "somewhere", before I even begin searching!

PastorAIO:
Of non existent things there are two types. Characters, and Characterless.

That which is without character is Non-existent.

But not every non existent thing is without character. For example we have fictional characters. e.g Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist but he is a well recognised Character from Canon Doyle books. The Fictional acts and choices of Sherlock Holmes will still always tally with his fitional character.

But Sherlock Holmes does exist, fictitiously albeit, as, and with a character, created by Conan Doyle!

Are you suggesting God too has a created character?

HellVictorinho:
If 'everything' exists somewhere, 'nothing' must also exist elsewhere.

I don't see how that last statement follows from your first statement. Wouldn't it be much truer to claim "nothing must also exist nowhere"? Explain please.

Also explain the 'everything' that exists somewhere. I'm sure you can't possibly mean that there's a place I could go and 'everything' would be there. Or do you?

HellVictorinho:
How does hitting my head against the wall to see if something exists compare to the statement I made on the impossibility of expressing infinity with numbers?
You are only proving how good you are at criticizing stupidly!!!!

But one can very easily express infinity with numbers. You just keep adding 1 to Infinity and keep going! Its easier to count 1, 2, 3, however. That's how easy it is to criticise stupidity.

Or is the definition of Infinity (symbol: ∞) no longer, "a concept describing something without any bound, or something larger than any natural number"?

PastorAIO:
In other words do we have Character. Yes indeed, we are defined by our character. Does our character determine our actions and the choices we make. Yes indeed it does.

Does God have a Character?

Of course, otherwise God would be featureless, non existent.

Therefore along with everything else in the universe that has character and is bound to act according its character God (whichever one) cannot exercise freedom of Will but rather will act in that manner prescribed by his Character.

Just like it is the character of dried leaves to catch fire when you put a flame to them due to the very nature of what dried leaves are.

From what you've said here, I'm inclined to say the character of gods is to not exist since my position is that they don't exist.

What you reckon, Pastor?

00Godwin:
Ok, let's move a little further. Don't you think it's a miracle that the big bang explosion happened uncaused? And also a miracle that God exists without a begining? It is believed, "Nothing comes from nothing."

Hold on! Big bang explosion? God? "Nothing comes from nothing"?

Sounds like you are asking us to argue about your beliefs, to me. Or has anyone told you they believe any of those things you listed?

HellVictorinho:
Now,you are implying absurdity.
If you don't have anything to type in reply, just keep your absurdities to yourself!!!!

On your forum? Make me please! And continue to refuse to see your own absurdity, why don't you!

HellVictorinho:
So,if you are thinking of discovering 'everything',you are simply wasting your time.

No one is thinking of "discovering 'everything'"! I can't even discover everything in my own home, not to talk of on my street!

Not everyone has so much time to waste! A "little bit of something" satisfies many of us.

HellVictorinho:
This is abysmal, you want me to use numbers that don't exist.
Oh,I guess I am wrong on that one as well.

No, I don't want you to use numbers. I want you to use your head and a wall, or can't you read?