₦airaland Forum

Maynmaynmayn:
When a candle burns, the flame exhibits visible movement due to the flow of hot gases and the combustion process. The flame flickers and dances, indicating motion and turbulence within the flame.

However, if we focus on a specific region within the flame, such as the tip of the wick where the combustion is most active, it may appear relatively stable and at rest. This is because the combustion is sustained in that particular area, and the flame appears to have a consistent shape and position.

Why focus on a region and not the whole? Is that not the same as focusing on "Generation ex nihilo" while ignoring the "no", and don't you think you'd misunderstand what you read if you did that?

Still, candle. When it is said that "A thing needs Non-Being in order to change", what is meant is that a thing must stop being what it is in order to change into something else, just as the burning candle must become the non-being of a candle in order to produce "the flame and the visible movement due to the flow of hot gases and the combustion process and the flicker and the dances and the light".

And after you have extracted the flame and the hot gases and the flicker that dances and the light from the burning candle, you will eventually have no candle left.

Basically the burning of the candle will make the candle become a non-candle because it has changed into the flame and hot gases and the flicker that dances and the light. As a candle it is hence not-being a candle anymore, and in order to have a being of a candle you'd need to go buy a new candle.

You don't fill a car tank with petrol and drive till the tank is empty and expect to find a full tank of petrol because the petrol has become non-being of the type called petrol and changed into the being of the distance you covered driving the car with the petrol in the tank, which is not no-thing.

Maynmaynmayn:
That’s what no-thing means.
Thing means The term thing came from the Old English þing, meaning “entity”, “being”, “body”, or “matter”.
So non being means no-thing.


All the drawings emerges from this blank and empty canvas.

You must have a different dictionary to my own, and words must mean the opposite to what words mean to me, because nothing does not mean non-being anywhere I have come across it.

And All the drawings did not "emerges from this blank and empty canvas". You, the drawer of the drawings, drew the drawings on the canvass! Or some god must have miraculously put the drawings on the blank canvass. You choose.

Maynmaynmayn:
Being here consist of matter.
Just like the blank canvas, all drawings are within this canvas.
Everything is within Nothingness.
It is from nothing that everything emerges.

Non-being does not mean no-thing.

If "all drawings are within this canvas", "this canvass" can not be blank and can not be within nothing because "all drawing are within the canvas" which is a thing! You will not after all draw on the canvass and insist the canvass is blank, or would you?

If we are all conversing with each other on Nairaland, we can not also, at the same time, not be on Nairaland conversing!

A thing can not be at motion and also at rest. Your car can not be moving along the expressway and also be parked in you garage.

LordReed:
I think he's trying to use intution. If everything is contained in something and space and time are also contained in something which he is calling nothing. While ignoring those vacuum fluctuations which persist even in the absence of space and time.

Intuition? As in, not know what he's talking about and is just making it up and whinging it?

I wonder why he'd do that instead of consider what those who actually know what they are talking about because they have spent time studying literature on the topic and considered it.

He did introduce Sunyata, but he also once Intuited that he was sitting on his buda in Budapest. Lol.

Maynmaynmayn:
Exactly i just explained it to you..
I think the definition of “nothing” is the problem.
For there to be a being there must be a non being, our definition of non being is nothing.

I told you inside the emptiness of a cup there’s limitless potential. It’s not “empty”.

The definition of nothing is only a problem because you want to make it a problem.

Why must "For there to be a being there must be a non being".

If I have a being called a million pounds in the pocket of my trousers, must there be a being called no million pounds in the pocket of my trousers too?

Is it true that for there to be a being called Mayn, there must be a non-being called Mayn?

Why? How? And where would this non-being called Mayn be exactly?

LordReed:
You are saying here's something and calling it nothing.

Funny, isn't it, my Lord.

Maynmaynmayn:
“Ex nihilo nihil fit" is a Latin phrase that translates to "out of nothing, nothing comes."

I seriously do not understand why you do not understand that “Ex nihilo nihil fit", means "no generation ex nihilo", just as "the cup is not empty" means "the cup has something in it".

Maynmaynmayn:
The “no” is part of the quote.
Generation ex nihilo, which translates to "generation out of nothing" in Latin, refers to the concept of something coming into existence without any preexisting material or cause. In various contexts, it can be interpreted as the idea that something can emerge or be created without any prior foundation or influence.

Generation ex nihilo, which translates to "generation out of nothing", is correct.

Now add the "no" and tell me what you understand by no generation ex nihilo.

Or lets try it in simple English.

Does "no cup on the table" mean "a cup is on the table"?

Maynmaynmayn:
Your screenshot is “creation from nothing”, I’m talking about “nothing from nothing”. No “creation” is needed.

"Generation ex nihilo" means "nothing from nothing", but please tell me why you are choosing to not see the no before the "nothing from nothing" that you posted?

Does "no generation ex nihilo"" not mean that "something must come from something"?

Creation is after all not the only way that a something can come into existence. How about something evolving from something that exists before that something?

Can you have a big bang without a big thing to go big bang? And if you can, must it be a creator?

Maynmaynmayn:
Even in the link you sent it maintained “nothing comes from nothing”.

I think you have failed to understand what you read.

While the basic idea of hylomorphism is easy to grasp, much remains unclear beneath the surface. Aristotle introduces matter and form, in the Physics, to account for changes in the natural world, where he is particularly interested in explaining how substances come into existence even though, as he maintains, there is no generation ex nihilo, that is that nothing comes from nothing.

Maynmaynmayn:
This thing and vacuum are within Nothing.

I guess I'd have to accept that's how you see things or understand or accept things to be.

Hopefully, you understand how I see, understand and accept things to be.

Maynmaynmayn:
Nothing is formless and has no matter.

Voila!

And it is like gods and angels and devils and heaven and hell that do not have a form and do not consist of matter nor physical existence but only exist in the minds of those in whom such crap is created.

Maynmaynmayn:
Nothingness is watery chaos.

Now you've spoilt it!

Nothingness can not be a thing that is watery and chaotic!

Watery describes a state of a thing with form (watery) that is made up of a matter called oxygen and another matter called hydrogen, both of which have their own form and matter and are therefore things and can not therefore be not-things.

And chaos is a state that things are in, so can also not be not-thing. If you have not-thing, you will not have anything to be in a state that is chaotic.

Maynmaynmayn:
If you remove the vacuum you will be left with nothing, the vacuum is within Nothing.

If you remove the vacuum in a thing you will still be left with the thing you removed the vacuum from.

Even if you remove the room that you removed the vacuum from you'd still have the rest of the house you did not remove, and even if you remove the house you d still have the land the house was on.

Now, I guess you can somehow remove the land the house was on too, but I'm certain you'd still have something to indicate the land the house used to be on and that the room used to be in, like a thing called an address that has identifiable form and matter like it's coordinates, signifying a thing called location.

Maynmaynmayn:
this cup with shapes and form emerges from nothing. It’s a vessel created within Nothing.
Plato talk about form and matter.

Plato wrote about a thing called form and a thing called matter, and he differentiated it from no-thing, which has no-thing called form and a no-thing called matter, and Aristotle went even further than Plato and opposed Plato too
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/

If a thing has form and matter it is a-thing. And we can pick that thing up and put that thing down, and pour other things like water into them if their form and matter can hold things like water.

Maynmaynmayn:
A thing means matter, entity or body.
Everything is within Nothing.

No Mayn, everything is not within nothing. Every thing known to exist is within a thing called space that occupies a specific thing called time.

Maynmaynmayn:
I think the definition of Nothing is the problem, when I separate No from thing.
I’m talking about nothing as absence of matter, body and entity, All things emerges from this Nothing.
Just as all drawings emerges within the canvas.
The blank and empty canvas has no beginning, but the drawings on the canvas has a beginning.

Indeed Mayn, definition is a problem.

The absence of a specific thing does not mean no-thing, and things usually do not just spring into existence our of nothingness. Before the drawings on the canvass had its beginning of you drawing drawings on it, a thing called canvass had to have had its own beginning and exist. If the canvass had not had its own beginning and come into existence you'd have no canvass to draw your drawings on.

Maynmaynmayn:
Yes suck everything away from the room if you can, you will be left with nothing, the nothing is there you only extracting something within it, air, atoms, entities, bodies, everything is within Nothing.

Everything is not within nothing. You are not within nothing. You are within a place probably called your home, in a place that has an address in a place called a country that is on a place called continent on a place called earth that is in a place called the universe. All those places that you are in are all things that can be identified, as opposed to no-thing, or no-place.

Technically, if "you suck everything away from the room if you can", what you'd have is a thing in the room that could be referred to as a vacuum, which is not no-thing, but a-thing, but let me confess that our current conversation has not yet evolved that far though I wish we could.

Maynmaynmayn:
I’m talking about the emptiness inside the cup, a cup is empty because it contains Nothing. Water fills this Nothing inside the cup.

What does buda mean, Mayn? Please let us do the simple before we do the more complex please, as sunyata is a rather more complex idea than you are suggesting here.

You are talking about the emptiness of a thing called cup, and that is why it is a thing called empty cup, as opposed to nothing which is no-thing at all, or even the cup, empty or not.

Empty and nothing do not mean the same thing and can therefore not be used in place of each other.

As for the thing called water that you pour into the thing called empty cup, the water actually displaces a thing called air that was in the thing called cup that was supposedly empty. And if you had tested for the thing called air inside the thing called empty cup you would not have found zero amount of the thing called air inside the thing called empty cup, but an amount greater than zero of the thing called air inside the thing called empty cup.

Maynmaynmayn:
this cup with shapes and form emerges from nothing. It’s a vessel created within Nothing.
Plato talk about form and matter.

You are taking my analogy as real life example. I’m using it as a creation example.
Without this emptiness there can be no cup.
All creation emerges from this nothingness with limitless potential.

I’m not even talking about philosophy 101, this Nothingness is everywhere.

Sorry, but I do not do the sort of creation you are talking about. I am an atheist, and not a creationist! And if you are not talking philosophy, which simply means the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, then you might as well be talking imaginary gods and angels and heaven and hell, which are not real and do not exist except in the minds of those in whom they are created by themselves or their pastor or their imam, in which case you are making stuff up like some theist!

As for your "Nothingness is everywhere", that's not true, since some-thing is usually everywhere unless no-thing is there.

If we put a thing called empty cup on a thing called table in a place called room, a thing called zero cup is not on the thing called table in the place called room. And even the room is not empty since the thing called table is inside the place called room.

Even if you take the thing called empty cup and the thing called table out of the place called room, you would still find that a thing called air is still in the room unless we suck the thing called air out of the place called room.

Maynmaynmayn:
I am talking about the concept of “zero”.

And you are for some reason refusing to hear me talking about the concept called no-thing, which can be represented by the concept called zero.

If you place an empty cup on a table, you would not say there is zero of a thing called empty cup on the table. But if you remove the empty cup from the table, you would be correct to say that there are zero of the thing called empty cup on the table.

You can not paint on a thing called zero or no-canvass. You need the thing called canvass to be greater than zero for you to be able to paint on a thing called canvass.

Maynmaynmayn:
I’m talking about the emptiness inside the cup.
I’m talking about the emptiness of the canvas.
Within this emptiness, alot of potential is inside it, its-from there that creation emerges.

I know what you are talking about Mayn. I am disagreeing with you!

The only reason an empty cup thing has potential is because the empty cup itself is a thing with shape and form. Remove the thing called empty cup and you'd have no-thing to hold the potential of the water you could not pour inside it.

This subject is philosophy 101. First class they ask you how you know the thing in front of you is a thing that exists. I was in a pub one day drinking when some girl asked how I knew the thing called table that my thing called pint of drink was on was a thing that existed. I took her thing called hand and raised it up and brought it down fast to bang on the thing called table, but she amazingly snatched her thing called hand away because she very well knew the thing called table that my thing called pint of drink was on existed, or she would have found out the table was a thing that existed when I smashed her thing called hand on it.

Maynmaynmayn:
When you have no oxygen, food, you are talking about a thing, zero or nothing is not a thing.

Zero was used as a placeholder not a number.
https://www.livescience.com/27853-who-invented-zero.html

When you have no oxygen, you have zero of the thing called oxygen. You could represent it with a thing called zero if you find a reason to, like if you were describing a cave that is under water and had no oxygen in it, hence no-oxygen, or zero oxygen, but you wouldn't claim you breathed that zero no-oxygen and lived. Or would you?

Maynmaynmayn:
I’m doing any religare.

The empty cup in this case represents nothingness, the emptiness in that cup is what I’m talking about, it represents potential, you can pour any drink you want inside it, if the cup was filled you won’t be able to pour any to it.

So as the black canvas, the blank and empty state represents potential, mind blowing arts can be drawn within this blank and empty state.

The empty cup, in any case, can not represent no-thing. You can not put an empty cup on a table and claim there is no-thing on the table unless you are doing religare (I assume you mean religion), and if you are, then buda is definitely not the person to be conversing with it or we'd both be claiming gods exist or something equally stupid!

An empty cup is a thing. It is a cup thing that is empty, as in, it has zero content-things in it.

Maynmaynmayn:
Have you looked up the origin of word zero?

“The Hindus
The dot was a precursor to the zero we know today. Some theories suggest that, according to Hindu ideals, zero wasn’t a hole representing nothing; it was round because it signified the circle of life.”

https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-origin-of-the-word-zero/

Please Mayn, by now you ought to know that I am not completely ignorant.

Zero was an idea that humans were not aware of until they got smart enough to understand and discover it as a concept. And long before it was understood, it was described as all sorts, and long after it became an understood concept was it taught to Europe as the idea and concept it was. But zero, as in no-thing, still existed as a concept despite human ignorance.

Even in ancient times and like today, if you had no-oxygen, as in zero-oxygen, you would not have been able to breath, and if you had no-food as in zero-food, you would have starved. But you could not have been on earth and at any time ever not had a thing called gravity, because it was not a thing you had to know that you had, but a thing that existed regardless of you knowing of it, just like the concept that became known as zero.

Maynmaynmayn:
The blank canvas is blank and empty, it has nothing on it, the drawings will be within this blank and empty canvas. It was an analogy.

The drawing i am talking here is about creation, all drawing is within that blank and empty canvas.
It’s from this emptiness that creations emerge.

Stop the religion a moment. Let's philosophise instead so we don't confuse the issue with religious gobbledegook.

A cup is empty like the blank canvass is empty. It has nothing in it, but when you pour water into the empty cup there will be something in the cup, but the cup itself is a thing or you wouldn't have anything to pour the water in to, same as you painted on the blank canvass that is a thing.

Painting on no-thing would be you painting in thin air.

Maynmaynmayn:
The origin of the word that’s what i mean, I’m not adding any definitions.

Nothing— no— thing
Thing means a being, entity or matter..
Nothing means non-being, non entity, non-matter.

If you look at the origin of the word zero 0, it doesn’t connote what we know it as now.
6-6 was not 0 in ancient times.

6 minus 6 was always zero even before humans knew what 6 and minus and equal to and zero was, and saying otherwise is like claiming a tree did not make a sound as it fell because no one was in the forest to hear it fall

'Not knowing' does not mean the same as 'not exist', or theists would be able to say you do not know god exists because you do not know god, which I'm certain they've said already, to which I say bollocks!

One could be ignorant of a thing and therefore not know of the things existence. Gravity, for instance, existed and was doing its thing long before and despite humans being unaware of the existence of gravity.

Maynmaynmayn:
No-thing exist without been in existence.

That something is within Nothing.
Just like a blank canvas that represents Nothing, all drawings exist within that Nothingness.

But the blank canvas is not nothing! It is a canvas that is just blank. Remove the canvas, and you will have nothing on which to do your drawing on.

Come on, Mayn, you can very easily confirm this for yourself by attempting to draw on a no-canvass. If you type your response to me on the canvass which is whatever device you type your response on and post it on the canvass which is Nairaland, I will see it and read it and respond to it on my canvass and post it on the nairaland canvass accordingly for you to read. But if you do not type your response on the device which is the canvass on which you type it on, you would not likely be able to post it on the canvass that is Nairaland, and since I can not read the canvass that is your mind, I will not be able to read nor respond to it.

Maynmaynmayn:
We can know the definition of these words by going to the origin of those words, nothing and chaos.

Nothing comes from No-Thing..
The term thing came from the Old English þing, meaning “entity”, “being”, “body”, or “matter”.

Chaos represents Nothing.
Even in greek mythology, chaos “created” everything.

Hesiod tells us that chaos is the origin of everything-the creation of the universe,

"Verily at the first Chaos came to be,
but next wide-bosomed Earth,
the ever-sure foundation of all."

Chaos proceeded to give birth to the first Greek gods, the primordial deities, Hesiod portrays chaos as preceding all other elements and entities in the universe.


“In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty."

Formless and empty-this is the original meaning of the Greek word Chaos(khaos 'vast chasm, void) signifying a void or a state of nothingness.

In babylonian mythology, this deep is apsu, in Mesopotamia this deep is nammu, in egyptian it is Nun.

No-thing means no “entity” or “being” or "body” or “matter”. If there is thing called an "entity” or “being” or "body” or “matter", it is a-thing or some-thing, and not a no-thing.

Chaos is a state of thing, and is generally a disorganised state the thing is in. And if there is no-thing to be in chaos, there can not be said that the chaos thing exists.

Religion uses the word chaos in a sense they never define, but considering the earth and universe was not as organised and settled until it evolved into its current state, it can be said that the settled and organised state that we now perceive evolved from the chaotic state it hitherto had been. That is not to say the chaotic state created. No it didn't. State just calmed down from chaos to settled.

TenQ:
Let's assume OBEs are all Dreams: can you justify or explain why some OBEs report what is considered impossible for the subject to know (as a dream)

Yes. They think they don't know it but do. The unconscious is a very powerful thing, as is the mind.

They could also be lying that they do not know.

.

TenQ:
You said:
Fact is, it is not a experience of a real thing that actually happened.

Unfortunately, it is Not your experience and there are even reports of more compelling OBE with verifiable scientific reports. This is why scientists don't deny OBEs

I am not denying NDEs or OBEs. I am claiming that what ever you experience under the terms is not a real physical thing.

Like you might see angels or go to heaven or hell as part of your NDE and or OBE, but claiming therefore that angels or heaven or hell exist or that you went to an actual heaven or hell is untrue.

If, as part of your NDE or OBE, you went to a lavish restaurants and ate a fancy meal, there would be no evidence of it in your belly and you'd be as hungry as you were before the experience just as would be the case if you dreamt it.

https://www.nairaland.com/7726647/near-death-experience-atheist-professor/1#123786239

TenQ:
No sir!

A Doctrine in this sense is a spiritually established fact.

I cannot stick out my neck for any NDE as doctrine.

My objective is that especially you atheists will listen to Prof Howard Storm and judge if there is a semblance of truth in his testimony!

QED!

In your own personal sense, perhaps, just as you can decide in your sense that water is petrol.

In the generally accepted sense, a doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by....... I've left the gap for you to fill.

TenQ:
So are you saying that ALL NDE with OBE is a fabrication?

Prof Howard's experience reported an OBE!

No, I am not saying "ALL NDE with OBE is a fabrication".

I am saying the experience is not of something that is real, more or less like a dream is not real but a figment of the imagination and the mind.

wirinet:
I am certain he cannot get into the White House and I am sure he knows it. His base is just not enough to win the presidential elections. He probably has 60 - 70% of the Republican party. His numbers among the independents has shrunk from the 2019 elections and the Democrats are much more galvanised to vote against Trump.

Remember a growing number of republicans are openly critical of him and there is the ever present Lincoln Project. Even Joe Biden is counting on Trump to run in order to unify the democratic candidate against a common hatred of him.

I want what you say to be true, and I so much want to believe you, but I can't claim I'm as confident as you are since there are more potential magas than rational reasoning people.

I confess I been watching far too much OAN and Newsmaxx, and they are beginning to scare and worry me.