Hello,


We are looking for a promising candidate to work remotely. This means that the candidate must have access to a laptop/computer and be able to communicate very regularly via internet and do word processing from home. This is a work from home job only.

Candidate must have:
1. Computer or daily access to a computer
2. Instant access to the internet.
3. Experience in a business/managerial position OR a relevant degree in business/management.
4. Be very self motivated and able to work very quickly on any tasks assigned.
5. Be analytical with very good attention to detail.
6. Very good written English. Candidate should also be able to write reports and prepare business documents (business plans, research etc)

If you are such a candidate, or you know someone who is, please send an email to careers@epsolun.com. In the email, please indicate with a cover letter why you have all 6 attributes listed above (noting point 5). In addition, please ATTACH to the email your CV/Resume.

Promising candidates will be contacted.

Bump

Job vacancies for the following positions:

Accountant:
Must have minimum 2:1 or 2:2 with very good numeracy skills. Preferably female.

Engineering Marketer:
Must have minimum 2:1 or 2:2 with very good communication skills. Preferably Male.

All applicants must reside in Abuja. Non-Abuja residents will be immediately disqualified.
Please email careers@tycol.net with the following attachments:
CV
Cover Letter

In the body of the email, please indicate the following in the first three lines:
Name and Telephone number
Current State of Residence and State of origin
Highest Degree attained (e.g. BSc Accounting or OND Mass Communications) and Degree class (e.g. 2:1, 2:2).


Only applicants who demonstrate an ability to follow the above instructions TO THE LETTER. Will be called for interview.
Interviews will be held from 10am on the 28th of February 2013 so please send in your applications now.

Catholic priests generally have no other source of upkeep but offertory, or donations from members of their parish. In fact, all that they possess belongs to the church and is not theirs. Therefore, it would be a little silly to take from the church and give to the church.

That said, it is not unheard of for a priest visiting a foreign parish to give offertory.

Atheist:-D:
^^^

I was about to mention Schrodingers cat myself. Schrodingers cat allows for the belief ina system whereby two dependent factors can coexist hypothetically as long as we are unable to identify the states of both.

The summary of Schrodingers cat is that although it is believed that either the cat or vial of cyanide exist, both can exist only when you do not know the contents of the box. Once the box is opened it is clear that only one can exist. It is also clear that there sre limits to the belief of the dual existence of both: any noise within the box is an indication that the cat is alive, a vial smashing noise is an indication of the vial being broken etc.

The better we can monitor the box the better knowledge we have of the state of the contents. This is true with the omnipotency of God. The omnipotency is not a true omnipotency but a perceoved omnipotency with limits we have not yetndefined. The paradoxes guide us to a better understanding that the two states within the paradox can never coexist.

I completely agree. However, I would add, that the omnipotency can never really be appropriately defined within the context of our universe. Any definition would be inadequate if it presupposes notions based on physical laws defined within our universe.

Furthermore, I posit that the conceptual black box, modelled after Schroedinger's, in which God operates, is even murkier and more sophisticated than Schroedinger's. This box has the ability to breakdown the state of our reality at its will as opposed to Schroedinger's which exists in a fixed, though unmeasurable, state. In Schroedinger's box, there is a fixed reality, but our observation of that reality is inconclusive and so we are forced to make two equally possible but contradictory conclusions until the box is opened and our observation conclusive. In God's black box however, the black box behaves with a will of its own able to alter reality itself and without the strictures of the physical laws of our universe. Who knows..? Perhaps, in this murkier, more sophisticated box, the two states may in fact coexist...

I really, really, really should not be responding on this thread.

For one, the OP has not the capacity to comprehend my response, whether it be wrong or right. Also, this question has been beaten to death with answers, not least of which is the simple answer that the question is incoherent and illogical. But I think I have a resolution...

I think that science has already provided an answer to this question, albeit inadvertently: Schroedinger's Cat!

Schroedinger's cat is at once dead and alive; to the observer. In truth, the cat itself knows whether it is dead or alive (technically, it knows that it is alive, or it does not know that it is dead) but as the observer has no way of determining the state of the cat, it is said to be dead and alive.

How does this relate to the stone?
Well, we can extrapolate this paradox to our own reality. We are beings observing God in a closed box. The fact that it appears to us that God cannot create a stone he cannot lift is due to the fact that we perceive the paradox as irreconcilable. This is a limitation on ourselves as observers not on God as an omnipotent being! We are trying to place limitations on a God that, by definition, created all things, by using tools that were, in the first place, created by that God. Therefore, the paradox is that we're trying to measure God using tools that he created!

The above paragraph is essentially a rehash of the incoherency argument. However, it bears significance on my "resolution".

If we accept the fundamental premise of an omnipotent being, which is that it created all things (otherwise, it wouldn't really be omnipotent would it?), then we accept that he created the fundamentals of the universe which govern our perception of all that occurs within the universe. However, this being would not be so governed; it would remain independent of the internal strictures of the universe it created. Therefore, in so far as our senses are concerned, this being could, if it chose to, create a stone, within our universe, which it cannot lift. And in the next moment, if it chose to, it could lift that stone. Put another way, since the being is responsible for all creation, particularly of physical laws that govern creation, it could change the physical laws which are responsible for our perception of the above paradox (for, as I have already said, the paradox is a paradox only from our perception) and create a stone which we perceive to be too heavy even for the creator to lift. And in the next moment, this being could change those same physical laws again and lift the stone.

Before someone says that I am twisting logic or creating paradoxes of my own, I want to point out that this notion, though imaginative, is not so inconceivable. The multiverse theory proposes an infinite number of universes. Each of which may have its own set of physical laws, some of which may appear incoherent or inconceivable from our own perspective, assuming we were able to observe them in the first place. Therefore, I am not trying to propose one impossibility to explain away another impossibility or another paradox to explain away the first paradox. Rather, I am trying to point out that our own limitations create the paradox for a being whose existence may not be governed even by the strictures of logic. It is our reality that is shattered by the existence of such a stone not God's.

Also, the fact that God goes ahead and negates the original creation by lifting the stone does not mean that the stone was not genuinely created in the first instance. Rather, it is God's choice one way or the other that determines the very essence of the created object. In so far as God has created the stone with no intention to lift it by changing physical laws, then his creation satisfies the criteria. And yet, once God decides to lift the stone by changing physical laws, the stone once again ceases to exist as God can now lift it. The stone can then be said to exist in a kind of quantum flux where it is both too heavy for God to lift and not heavy enough for God not to lift, just like Schroedinger's Cat! It is God's choice that determines it's final state just as opening the box determines the cat's state and collapses the wave function, as they say.

I propose, if your imagination is aligned with mine, that God has in fact created such a stone which exists today in our reality. I think evil would qualify as such a stone.

frosbel:

The catholic church denies anything that could be a potential obstacle to their union with the wider Christian community. I was once a catholic, in fact for the better part of my earlier youth. The moment I saw all the errors, worshipping and idolising the pope, bowing before statues, venerating the dead, twisting the word of God, I was out.

Nawa for you O frosbel. Catholics do not worship or idolize the pope. Never!

Secondly, when we "bow" before statues, we bow not at the statue but at the image and presence of God generated in our minds. Real Catholics are very conscious of the difference and careful not to mistake it for worship of a statue. The presence of the statue is only symbolical and helps to provide a focus it is not a substitution for God.

Thirdly, if you truly understood the Catholic faith, you would see that we only venerate the eternally living, or people whose deeds closely mirrored the life of Christ.

frosbel:
Why do Catholics have to add Mary and all the dead saints to their system of worship, is Jesus not enough ?

To this I ask simply, why not?
Ask yourself: how many books in the bible were actually written by Jesus Christ?
Ask also: if our faith, all Christian faith, is passed down by followers of Christ, what is the difference between the honour you unconsciously do Paul the apostle and the honour I do Mary the mother of Christ?

This is a perfect example of a thread gone bad. None of the posters really makes a decent attempt to answer the OP's question or at least engage in honest debate on the subject. The one person who posts the most insightful comment does so in cynicism.

ilosiwaju: God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden to give Adam and Eve a choice to obey Him or disobey Him. Adam and Eve were free to do anything they wanted, except eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:16-17, “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’” If God had not given Adam and Eve the choice, they would have essentially been robots, simply doing what they were programmed to do. God created Adam and Eve to be “free” beings, able to make decisions, able to choose between good and evil. In order for Adam and Eve to truly be free, they had to have a choice.

There was nothing essentially evil about the tree or the fruit of the tree. It is unlikely that eating the fruit truly gave Adam and Eve any further knowledge. It was the act of disobedience that opened Adam and Eve’s eyes to evil. Their sin of disobeying God brought sin and evil into the world and into their lives. Eating the fruit, as an act of disobedience against God, was what gave Adam and Eve knowledge of evil (Genesis 3:6-7).

Even within the cacophony of this thread, the voice of truth could be heard, but as is typical, it was drowned out by cynicism.

If you accept that the purpose of creation was love, and love is impossible without free will, and free will impossible without choice and choice necessarily begets right and wrong, then you can begin to grasp why God's creation necessitated evil. But God, being God, realised that all that evil could be contained in one choice.

If you accept the above, and certainly you don't have to, but if you accept it anyway, then you can see how once that choice to disobey was made, once that path was taken, man himself became a threat to the very purpose of creation. Put this way, if you were given the license to commit any and all crimes with impunity, and you had forever at your disposal, and you choose to exercise that license, at what point would you choose to stop exercising that license? If evil exists with no moral or physical cost, would it cease? Would it ever relent?

Take babies for instance. Once they learn to say no, you'll find that many choose to exercise that right a lot. Have you ever seen a baby say no, no, no, endlessly as if the very sound of the word brought it joy? I find it adorable. Eventually of course, all babies learn a measure of temperance. They learn to become more social, they learn that non-cooperation gets you nowhere and they learn to say yes too.

I know I am posing more questions than I am providing answers, but whilst I have my own opinions, I do not necessarily think that posting them here will provide any reader with a satisfactory solution. I believe that the best answers are the ones we discover on our own. This I learnt from Guinan.

And so my final question to you is this:
Would an immortal man, without the purpose that comes from toil, ever need to seek the face of God?

I can see that I'm very late into this thread. I spotted it in the morning, opened windows to reply, but I'm only just getting round to actually typing out my responses. Apologies if I'm bringing up things that have already been discussed or settled.

EDIT: I just realised this is a very old post so I have quietly deleted my contribution as the topic is no longer under discussion. Apologies once again.

.

jayriginal:
All quotes taken from "The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

Just a silly question for you "pseudo scientists" out there:

Considering the laws of conservation of energy and mass, if at the beginning the universe was infinitely dense (infinite mass) and infinitely hot (infinite energy) and now the universe has finite mass and finite energy, where did all that mass and energy go? After all, the most fundamental premise of the big bang is that the universe is the perfect closed system.

Kay 17:
Also, for God to be the uncaused cause, he has to be the most basic and simplest entity, thereby stripping/preventing him from exhibiting a complex personality and self. In order words, the building blocks of existence.

I do not know how you make this leap. Why does an uncaused cause have to be simple or basic?

wiegraf: Ugh, phone
@deep sight
"Nothing defies logic, my friend. God is the sum of all logic."
Vague. What can the sum of all logic do? Add the bits that suit it and subtract others? Does it do it consciously? You can infer that it is the sum of all logic, how? You can't tell if it's sentient?


"We might decide that there wasn't any singularity. The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere. When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter. It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter. Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time. Now you can ask: what sets the universe off. There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe. It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time."
Stephen Hawking

If a hypothesis is beyond your grasp that does not mean it is nonsense, especially when it is the most popular among the candidates for that particular problem. The problem might be you. I make it clear I'm bouncing ideas as well. You've been taking a piss on both science and logic for a while now, you are freely redefining space, time to fit your needs. When you are asked to clarify, you obfuscate by divining more properties. If we took your attitude this would probably have been over long ago.

"Exactly: it is that very logical necessity of God that the athiest fails to grasp."
So, for the both of you, lucidly if you will, what exactly have we not grasped? Can you do it with diagrams and s-l-o-w-l-y, as you can see I'm no match for your awesome

I am astounded by your ability to throw out strong scientific concepts and claim that to be science.

You are no match for any awesome.

Lord Babs: I've read all comments and accompanied with a pitiable laughter at most. It's unfortunate there isn't a luxury of time on my end to reply all, due to some pressing matters. There have been bulky insertions, assertions, assumptions, conjectures, fallacies and fantasies. Forgive me if i can't respond to all. First, on the issue of eternity, it falls under the category of fantasy and fallacy(red herring-deviation)...how far can you prove there is eternity? What is the concern of this thread with eternity stuff? Back on the status quo, the proponents of 'self-existence' have only succeeded in demonstrating their clownish feats, because their arguments are verily contradictory to the underlying maxim, serving as the basis of this argument. The only stronghold of these theistic stance rests on the so-called 'self-existence'; that is their only straw. A Self-existent entity is not within the province of reality. Far be it! We talk of energy, we talk of reality, we talk of photosynthesis, that is real; we talk of causality, that in itself is reality. What the h'ell is infinity?! And what the f**k is self-existence?! Are these 2 part of reality? NO! Can they be empirically proven? NO! The truth is that, you don't create what has no beginning and call it a creation/creator/something: it is overly precipitous, fictitious and dubious. Again, EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT (OUT OF NOTHING COMES NOTHING) is a saying, which if applied correctly, means for something to exist, there must be something. Which instantly translates that if God is to be regarded as 'something', then 'it' must have come from 'something'. This is a primary school logic! Lol! I don't understand how it is hard to understand. The major problem of theistic advocates is their obsession with INORDINATE INQUISITION. . .a deliberate, misguided and subconscious foray into the realm of infinity, in which they themselves don't officially subscribe to. Trying to reason outside the box is an untenable fallacy indeed. Nontheless, I'm sincerely impressed by the intelligent and unintelligent responses of everyone(including myself). I'll try and find more time to descend wonderfully to this arena sooner. Thanks.

You overwhelm me with gibberish.

Try to use paragraphs. That way, even if your statements are as nonsensical as the above, I can consume them one piece at a time.

Kay 17:
All existing entities are self existent, SINCE they don't owe their origin to nothingness.

Come on! Are you claiming that you are not a different entity from cow dung? Because, by your above claim, when one entity goes out of existence and another comes into existence as a by product of the first entity, the second entity and the first are still one self-existent entity! Existence and self-existence are different things!

Kay 17:
Eternity invokes a logical absurdity of infinite time.

Finite time is the more absurd concept. What would be before and after this time? Actually, even that question is absurd as that implies eternal time. Thus can you see how absurd finite time is?

Kay 17:
The popular First Cause is an overstretched, exaggerated with unnecessary qualities like consciousness and intelligence.

These qualities are not unnecessary. They become obvious and necessary once you ponder the full implications of the universe as a perfect black box.

wiegraf:
A simpler explanation like plaetton's, which could involve simple and naturally evolved programming, like the "game of life", matter rearranging itself constantly.

You forget that game of life was programmed that way!

plaetton:

Mr jayriginal:
This is an award winner. You have outdone yourself this time.

I hv advised my friend Deepy to eat the humble pie and say the magic words " I don't know yet or I don't understand yet".
Our new friend, Caezar, has already taken that honourable path.

If you refer to my post about eternity, please note that it referred [b]only [/b]to eternity! And my words were:

caezar:

It is a difficult question to address. I intuitively grasp that eternity must exist and is uncaused... But obviously, you are not asking for mere intuition. And since we are discussing in the presence of the eternally skeptic, I feel obligated to ground my intuition on reasoned logic.

Therefore, I do not know... I am contemplating.

jayriginal: I'd like to state clearly what I perceive to be the problem. Before I do so, I'd like to state that the stances between Plaetton and Deep Sight seem to be similar. The obvious difference is that Plaetton does not assign any properties to "god", whereas Deep Sight gives his god many qualities, intelligence and consciousness being a sample.

Now the topic is a question.
I'd like to modify it slightly to bring out what I think is the true intention.

For the sake of argument, if we assume that the premise that nothing comes from nothing is true, does that refute god's existence ?

On one side, it is argued that
1)Nothing comes from nothing.
2)We know there is something (we exist for example).
3)That means there has always been something (because if there was a time when there was nothing, then something would never have emerged).

The issue is what that something is, and how it can be if we accept the first premise.
This is a problem cos we need to know where that something comes from since it cannot come from nothing (remember, we are all accepting this premise for arguments sake).

The theist/deist proponents call that something "God", which ordinarily should not exist since it cannot come from nothing and if it came from something, it cannot be god (also we must necessarily keep going backwards to investigate the origin of something).

To resolve this problem, god is allowed to be self existent/not needing a beginning or creation or cause. The opposition shouts foul. This is ad hoc reasoning and is only employed to save the theory that something cannot emerge from nothing. One might as well say of a blind person, "Mr X sees very well except when he doesnt".

There is nothing preventing anyone from resolving this problem in any other way such as saying nothing comes from nothing except the first time it happened. In other words, we make a general rule and save it from its fallibility by creating an excuse.

Now it is one thing to accept the first premise for arguments sake and its quite another to argue that something can come from nothing. It was caezar who acknowledged that the first premise is difficult at best to prove/disprove (which made me think there was hope for him), and this is quite true.

So far, I believe everyone has accepted (for the sake of argument) that nothing comes from nothing. God which is something, cannot exist since it cannot come from nothing (some solve this by bestowing self existence on god). But wait, says Caezar, it also invalidates our existence since we cannot come from nothing and we clearly exist, so in the long run, there must have been something. In other words, if there was nothing, there would always have been nothing since (for the sake of argument) nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, there was something and that something did not come from nothing, rather it was always there. So what was that something ?

Deep Sight : The oneness of infinity. An immutable, self existing, immaterial intelligence.
Plaetton: Pure energy which only changed form, birthing the Universe as we know it and which is indestructable.

Wahala !!

If we follow the trail to the end and if we accept the conclusion then that some self existing thing/concept existed then we are left with the problem of WHAT? And how can the "what" be verified?

Why is there a need to assign qualities of intelligence and consciousness to this god (this after "saving" it from the brink of non existence by an ad hoc postulation)?

Interesting question. If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that the Universe did have a cause, however, that cause was mechanical or physical in nature, perhaps pure energy; in short, the cause was devoid of intelligence and consciousness. would you call it god ? (A hypothetical question but should bring up interesting responses).




Bear in mind that the foregoing argument is hardly relevant to reality. Whatever is, is. No matter how much we want something to be, it wont if it isnt. No matter how "logical" our arguments are, it has no bearing on reality. If we could learn things just by "thinking" about them, we would have no electron microscopes, no Large Halidron Coliders, no sensitive telescopes etc.
We could all just sit down and come with what works best for us and leave it at that. Nature in no way has to pander to our notions.

Lovely post.

I need to add, once again, that Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit works perfectly as a rule to be applied to our observable universe. But it breaks down completely when you start applying it to eternal, ineffable entities or concepts. For instance, can you apply Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit on itself? On existence? I know I sound absurd, there is a point at which language becomes insufficient for communication, but the idea is that there are things that cannot simply be physically quantified; can't be grasped. For instance, has anyone ever successfully held energy in their hands? (I don't mean the potential energy in your arms O). Can you say "see my own Kilojoule right here"?

I do not want to say too much and thereby detract from the beauty of your post. However, one last thing:

I have no problem with the scientific process. It helps us refine the observations we make with our natural senses. But science must also accept that it has limitations. For instance, I read somewhere recently, talk of building a collider as large as the Milky Way - obviously impossible - in order to validate a hypothesis. This is absurdly silly. Build a galaxy to validate a theory of the universe No! At some point, experiments are not sufficient. With the proper discipline we CAN build whole universes in our minds.

Kay 17:
Ok, define the Character qualities of the First Cause.

I would say, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and purposeful.

But please, I am not saying that it is a Allah, or Yahweh or any other god posited by any religion. I want to stick to the logical necessity of God. I do not want to discuss his religion.

Deep Sight: De Rerum Natura

The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius expressed this principle in his first book of De Rerum Natura (eng. title On the Nature of Things)

Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet,
nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam.[1]
English translation:
But only Nature's aspect and her law,
Which, teaching us, hath this exordium:
Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.[2]
He then continues on discussing how matter is required to make matter and that objects cannot spring forth without reasonable cause.
Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibus rebus
omne genus nasci posset, nil semine egeret.
e mare primum homines, e terra posset oriri
squamigerum genus et volucres erumpere caelo;[3]

English translation

Suppose all sprang from all things: any kind
Might take its origin from any thing,
No fixed seed required. Men from the sea
Might rise, and from the land the scaly breed,
And, fowl full fledged come bursting from the sky;[4]
[edit]King Lear

In William Shakespeare's King Lear, the king says, "Nothing will come of nothing" to his daughter Cordelia, meaning that as long as she says nothing to flatter him, she will receive nothing from him.[5] Later, Lear nearly repeats the line, saying, "Nothing can be made out of nothing" (Act 1.1 and Act 1.4 respectively).

"KING LEAR: ..what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR: Nothing?!
CORDELIA: Nothing.
KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing, speak again.

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

I don't mean to incite the atheists any further but this cracks me up.

Wikipedia:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow#Quotes

wiegraf:

Parameters for the first cause are not set by the system, in this case the system is the big bang and all the little routines that it contains. This should be patently obvious so I'm not sure why would make this argument. The issue should be about the nature of the source of all this chaos. Do you think it's sentient? Do you think it has supernatural pproperties, that can defy logic?

This is an obvious trap.

You ask for the nature of "the source of all this chaos". I contend that it's nature (even assuming that what we observe really is chaos) is irrelevant until and unless we can agree that it is self-existent and agree on its other necessary qualities.

This is what I find most atheists fall back on. They cannot show that a sentient first cause is logically invalid, but they can, by using straw arguments, argue that its very nature invalidates its existence.

No sir. I refuse to be drawn into that argument. Let's focus on the idea of a generic self-existent being. Be it God or science's singularity.

Deep Sight:
Still, no one has addressed my question on whether eternity exists, and whether or not it is caused.

It is a difficult question to address. I intuitively grasp that eternity must exist and is uncaused... But obviously, you are not asking for mere intuition. And since we are discussing in the presence of the eternally skeptic, I feel obligated to ground my intuition on reasoned logic.

Therefore, I do not know... I am contemplating.

plaetton:

You are essentially saying that everything has a first cause because everything is self existent.
Does that make any sense?

I said no such thing. I do not understand how you made this leap.

Purist: Hi caezar,



hmm. . . the ad hoc hypothesis at play here.

If the first cause can be classified as "something", do you not consider your claim here to be self-contradictory? Like an oxymoron? A logical impossibility of some sort? Consider this argument:

1) Something exists
1) First Cause is "something"
2) Something cannot come from nothing.
Ergo,
4) First Cause (being something) cannot come from nothing
EDIT: 5)(In other words, First Cause came from something.)

You are on the right track Purist.

However, although something cannot come from nothing, something does not necessarily need to come from anything. Something might always be i.e. having no origin but itself. This is the idea behind self-existence.

So while your assertions from 1 - 4 are correct, 5 is not because it misses the element of self-existence.

plaetton:

Unless my understanding of english is really bad, FIRST CAUSE supposes a beginning, whereas, SELF-EXISTENCE supposes no beginning.

First cause supposes a beginning from a cause which has no beginning. Otherwise, it would not be first cause.

jayriginal: Caezar, you are only slightly less dogmatic than Deep Sight so far.

Dont be in such a frenzy to prove your god that you end up chasing your tail.

Listen, the major problem with the arguments you and Deep Sight are putting forth is that they are expressed wrongly.
The problem which you may or may not have realised is that once you express yourself properly, it becomes clear that the substance of your argument is conjecture.

Due to a need to avoid this, both of you begin to speak as if these notions are known to you.

Think man, think!

Its really not difficult if you will let your biases go.

As far as you tow this line of reasoning, you will meet insurmountable problems. Obstacles you cannot scale without doing violence to logic.

Your above comment makes no sense.

I have spoken clearly. I presented cogent, coherent arguments. I have provided the SAME argument from different angles in the hopes that you would see it. I have NOT been dogmatic. This is logic. There is no dogma in logic.

I have not tried to invoke or explain God. Yet. I have kept it simple. I only want to show you the necessity of a self-existent being if you take Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit as a given. But you are so tied up with eliminating all the characteristics of God from any explanation of origins that you are unwilling to accept even something as basic as self-existence!

Finally, I have done no harm to logic. Unless perhaps you define logic in a way only Jayriginal understands.

plaetton: Questions for Deepsight, Vedaxcool and anyone who wishes to answer:

1. We have already agreed that energy is self-existent, so is energy the same as god, or created by god, or did energy create god, or , does energy and god co-exist(in which case we have a duality rather than a singularity)?

You contradict yourself when you claim that everything must have a beginning and then in the same vein invoke self existence.

It is either there is a first cause for everything or there is self-existence for everything. You cannot cherry-pick to suit your whims.

So where do you stand, First cause or self-existence? you cannot eat your pie and still have it.

Watershed! Sort of.

You still fail to see that the first cause IS self-existent. The two terms are essentially synonymous.

You have accepted that energy is self-existent. In a previous post, I believe you also accepted this of matter. However, science has gone one step further, it has posited a "singularity", infinitely dense and with infinite energy, which is self-existent. Essentially resolving your "duality or singularity" question. Resolving it in the sense that ALL that exists at first cause (what I referred to in my second post on this thread as Point A or t=0 - note that I borrow t=0 from science it is not mathematical hocus pocus) exists as a singularity; a single entity (I am not calling it God).

Do you accept?

plaetton:

The issues are very simple here, no matter how you guys try to confuse it.

No athiest that I know has gone out to prove that your god(which ever version) did not create the universe, since we dont believe in the existenece of god. We actually laugh at you guys that claim that god did.

You say everything that exist must have a creator and therefore god exists and created the universe. Fine.
Now , on the question of god's origin, you say "no no no", he does not have an origin.
You then make up a fancy word called self-existence.
Now, why can't your so-called self-existence notion be equally applied to all matter?

I guess god gets preferential treatment because he is god?

That's what is absoloutely hilarious,absurd and fraudulant.

That is the issue I want all thiests posting on this thread to addess.

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit IS applied to self-existent things but because they exist, it doesn't matter. You exist mate! You exist! Have enough faith in yourself if not in a self-existent being! And because you exist, you can apply the rule of Ex Nihilo Nil Fit to nothing and determine that nothing would ever spring from that nothing. But since you exist, something always existed! Think!!! Don't get so obsessed with trying to invalidate God that you stop thinking at all!

plaetton:

The issues in this debate have more to do with the notion of self-existent god supposedly creating something where nothing supposedly existed.

If something always has to come from something else, then god is something and has to ome from something else. Simple logic.Abi?
But if god did not come from something else, as Deepsight wants us to accept, then god is nothing, as only nothing can coem from nothing.

But rather than eating humble pie and confess that he does not know, Deepsight has found an escape hatch in conjuring a conenient fantasy that god is exempt from his own logic beacause god is self-existent or self -created, whatever the hell that means.

Can you spot the contradiction?

No contradiction. This is a straw man.
The difference between your argument and mine is that mine accepts that for Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit to make ANY sense in our observable universe, something must have always existed. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit does not say that Nothing EVER existed which, by the way, is the nonsensical premise on which you are basing all your refutations.

@Lord Babs, Area Boy, wiegraf, plaetton, Jayriginal etc...

You guys are like jokers who start off on a path. Two miles down the way, they discover that it leads to damnation. However, rather than simply turn back, leave the path and seek another, they start running around in circles on the same path in the futile hope that somehow, miraculously, the destination will change.

First of all, Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is NOT an argument. It is a statement that could form part of an argument but on it's own it doesn't constitute an argument. Your arguments so far can be broken down thus:

1. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Nothing Comes from Nothing.
2. At some point, absolutely nothing existed.
3. Therefore, I exist.

(I use "absolutely nothing" because I don't want to get into this silly argument about "something nothing". There is no variance or relativity to nothing. Nothing CAN ONLY BE absolutely nothing!!! But for the sake of clarity...)

Now, we do not know the truth values of statements 1 and 2 and it would be very difficult to ascertain them. Statement 1 is in fact impossible to prove through experiment as you would first have to create nothing itself before deriving something out of it, which would be ridiculous as the experimenter would be a something which created the something. Only statement 3 is easily tested and I must, grudgingly, accept that you all exist.

Once you break it down like this, the depth of silliness in your arguments becomes very obvious to the discerning mind. But I have my doubts about your abilities so I will repeat myself again:

caezar:
Put in other words, you cannot make a coherent argument on the first premise that nothing existed in the beginning, and the second premise that nothing comes out of nothing. If nothing comes out of nothing and we start with nothing, then you cannot possibly make the argument as you could not possibly exist to make an argument as nothing would ever exist. But if you accept that nothing comes from nothing but something always existed then you could exist as offshoot of that something that always existed.

If statements 1 and 2 above are true (this is an assumption you are ALL working on), then NOTHING WOULD EVER EXIST!!!
You would thereby be invalidating statement 3, the only empirical truth we have.

You must therefore discard one or both of your preceding statements (i.e. statements 1 and/or 2).
However, I must warn you that this does not make your task easier (I am assuming your task is to invalidate any self-existent being because they all look too much like God). Let me demonstrate.

If you choose to discard the first premise "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit", then you are faced with the prospect of proposing that something can come from nothing. An impossibility to demonstrate or even observe. Furthermore, even if you assume it to be true, it doesn't invalidate the possibility of self-existent beings.

If on the other hand you choose to discard the second premise: "At some point, absolutely nothing existed" then you would finally arrive at the argument that I and Deep Sight have been making:

1. Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Nothing Comes from Nothing.
2. Something always existed.
3. Therefore, you exist as an eventual offshoot of the something in statement 2.

If you are so bothered by this notion of a self-existent being, as proposed by statement 2, then you need to propose another resolution to your above dilemma.

I can think of one more such resolution. You could throw cause and effect completely out the window . Of course, in that reality, there would be no laws of physics. In that reality, when you press the submit button in your reply post, nothing happens!!! I wish .


What is it about You God, that the atheist would deny his logic in order to deny Your existence?

Lord Babs: I think we should look deeper. Even if i prima facie agree with you that there must be a grund norm existentiality(i.e.a self-existent force), we may have to differ, based on the logical surrounding of that self-existent entity. Why?
1. That entity was not created. In other words:
2. It has no origin. Meaning that:
3. It is strictly undefined, uncertain and unspecified .

Statements 1 and 2 are given by the very nature of a self-existent entity. However, how you arrive at 3 beats me. Why would you need to know the origin or creator or cause of a thing to define, ascertain or specify it? Is it not sufficient to do so by studying its effects? You would find it very difficult, scientifically, to tackle things like dark matter, anti-matter, photons, the Higgs boson, black holes etc if you hold all entities to such exacting standards. For that matter, this measure throws the big bang singularity out of the water.

Lord Babs:
By these, I can posit that although this grund norm assumes to be 'something' only hypothetically, the circumstances surrounding that 'force' doesn't provide a substantial evidence to disprove that it is practically 'nothing'.

Again, I do not get your logic. Even assuming your very questionable measure above, the inability to define, ascertain or specify a thing does not make it nothing. Furthermore, by declaring it to be nothing (and by 'it' I refer to what existed at Point A or t=0), you are disintegrating the very notion of existence because you are now reverting to the claim that this nothing is the foremost progenitor of a something that is you.

Lord Babs:
Because, come to think of it, how can a matter that lacks origin & source be claimed to be SOMETHING. I may think that self-existent thing exists only circumstantially and mere 'nothing' in disguise. And this is why to unravel the mystery surrounding the identity of this 'force' has everly been pragmatically difficult, even for its subscribers.

You are running around in circles and discarding the very premises on which you began your thought process. You exist. You cannot exist from nothing. Therefore, something existed, prior to you, to have caused you. Nothing that existed prior to you could have existed from nothing. Therefore, from the very beginning, something must have always existed.
The fact that you cannot ascribe characteristics to this something is a personal failing and does not invalidate your own existence. Others have already proposed tangible and credible descriptions of what this something was or is.

Lord Babs: Impressive contributions. Really enjoying this. Albeit I'm not of much a science pupil in school, but a simple logic could save the course. If we say some 'self-existent' matter exist before creation and out of nothingness, then we are saying something can emerge from nothing, which could as well be the universe or the so-called 'Big-bang'! or any other thing. In my opinion, the idea of a self-existent entity imagined by some philosophers is just borne out of the idleness of the mind to think further and further. Besides, by virtue of the principle of universal causation, it will still be asked: why is the creator(god) not caused? Can't we as well as put that the universe is not caused?

The question: Is there any scientific theory that explains how something(a matter) can be created from nothingness?

I am glad you said this. I was all about wading into this debate this morning to show the necessity of self-existent entities when I saw your comments above.

Nonetheless, the above is not complete. You have come to the realisation that the infinite regress that results from seeking the cause of every effect can only be resolved if you start somewhere, say Point A (or as science likes to say Time t=0), and assume that it is not logically possible to recede beyond Point A or t=0. The problem is you have not come to the realisation that all that exists at Point A or t=0 must perforce be self-existent. This is the underlying premise on which ANY argument about the origin of the universe must be based in order to be coherent and cohesive.

Put in other words, you cannot make a coherent argument on the first premise that nothing existed in the beginning, and the second premise that nothing comes out of nothing. If nothing comes out of nothing and we start with nothing, then you cannot possibly make the argument as you could not possibly exist to make an argument as nothing would ever exist. But if you accept that nothing comes from nothing but something always existed then you could exist as offshoot of that something that always existed.

This, in and of itself, should give you a fair understanding of the problem of existence. I know of no other way to resolve the premise of Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit and the fact of my own existence. I challenge anyone out there to provide a better resolution.