₦airaland Forum

Mayntheemaynn:
The mind is part of everything, so where is the mind itself existing?

The eastern religions are very interesting they have different concept to explore what's beyong the mind, bro deepsight.

It is well.

Alhamdulillah

ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّٰهِ

Mayntheemaynn:
The mind is also part of everything.

You make many odd statements. Statements such as are self evident and neednt be made.
What you have just written here is like writing: "A nail is a thing."

Whoever thought it wasnt a thing.

Mayntheemaynn:
You are saying the same thing, being means to be.

Your god only exist in your mind truly.

Probably everything exists in our minds anyway.

Mayntheemaynn:
But you were able to conceive that it is a being lol

I don't know. It could be an impersonal force, factor or element.

FRANCISTOWN:
Lol! I'm childish because I refused to be conformed with evil? What a play.🤣🤣🤣

There is no answer anyone wants to give that we've not heared countless of them.

It's either:
•God was more interested in their souls than their bodies thus prepared he them for eternal life. Eternal life my ass. Eternal life that there is no proof of. They, not considering that there might actually be very wicked people amongst those who died.
I doubt if they'd be exonerated of their guilts just because they died by Hitler.

•Or God knows the best.

Evil is actually evil.
Incapability is actually incapability.

There is no justification for an omnipotent god to open his eyes and watch as bandits attack his children in his own house without doing shit about it.
Even your bible says , only a stronger man can rob a strong man. He first ties him up and robs him with his eyes wide open.
The same with armed robbers, their arms make them stronger.
Should we agree that the bandits are stronger than your god, that's the reason he can't do anything with his eyes wide open?
Could it be that he doesn't even have eyes?
Could it be that he doesn't even have ears?
Could he be that he is not omnipotent after all?
I get it, it's simply because he doesn't exist.

I'm not sure I'd have the power to protect my kids and I'll do nothing, unless I'm mad.

An Omnipotent god is watching a kid being molested and at a snap of his fingers, the molester can vanish or petrify. Yet he doesn't do shit and just enjoy the show.

There is no justification under the skies that can absorb such level of foolishness, wickedness, immorality and irresponsibility of a self caused God. (Thinking about this I'm getting angry self).

Lemme share this with you, in the author's words:

"The story goes like this: in kidnapping 5–6 year old boys, and then raping and torturing them to death on video, which was then sold to wealthy businessmen around the world.

At the time, I remember reading that when the Russian policemen and soldiers busted the place, they couldn’t help but cry because of what they saw.

As I prayed, and read the Bible, and contemplated the horseshit within it, one inescapable conclusion kept popping up in my mind that while those little boys were being tortured and were dying in an unimaginable way, this Christian god was present in that same room, had the power to stop it, and didn’t.

We always hear that pedophiles do not survive long in prisons because even the worst offenders we have - rapists and murderers, do not tolerate pedophiles. They kill them because even the worst we have understand that a pedophile is the lowest of the low, violating the innocence. Yet omnipresent, omnipotent god knew from the beginning of time that these boys would suffer this fate, was present in the room while it was happening, and did nothing. I could never reconcile that with what the Bible taught."

1. Even the policemen who raided the place couldn't help at the sight of that kind of horror. They were sad to their souls that they shed hot, bitter tears. Yet, a supposed omnipotent, omnipresent god couldn't do anything about it. Imagine how many kids have been molested, killed (I can't even talk about it because it's too terrible to imagine)

2. @The second emboldened. Even rapists, murderers and other hardened criminals cannot tolerate pedophiles, yet a supposed god would rather enjoy the show. Does that make any sense to you?

That's the reason I said, none of the supreme beings being worshipped in every religion on earth fits into what can be called a "God". They fit more into a "Demon". Even demons if they existed can never be that wicked and irresponsible. The ideology of a "God" is very stupid and imbecilic.

The Muslim guys are way smarter, that's the reason they call their supposed "God" Allah. They knew the characteristics of Allah does not fit into what is supposed to be called a "God".
Yahweh doesn't even come close. If he existed, he would effortlessly pass the interview to being a demon(a very wicked one at that).

Do you still want me to ask questions? Then I'd be a very stupid, wicked, demented earthly bastard to tryna find a way around this abominable act of outlandish wickedness.

If yourself, PoliteActivist, Dtruthspeaker, Image123, MaxInDHouse, DrJones109, Jesusjnr2022 and several others are cool with this supposed "God"? Your wickedness must be out of this world.

Difficult not to concur. Indeed I have often said that whatever entities are responsible for the existence of this world, they must likely be sadistic entities.

Have a look at this -

https://www.nairaland.com/7012877/sadistic-nature-earth-life

One thing I have concluded is that certain things are incomprehensible. Whatever else the truth may be, the notion of God as a soft lovey dovey teddy bear is evidently misfooted.

God exists, to my mind, and in my view, but IT is not as we conceive IT.

LordReed:
Again there is NO TIME. You are thinking like the time locked being we are but a no time situation means a whole set of possibilities could exist that we can barely comprehend.

Do you agree that 2 and 1,000,000,000 are examples of an infinite set of numbers?

Time or no time, I think you still fail to grasp the simplicity of the point that an infinity of steps cannot have a conclusion or result in anything. It never ends, and thus goes nowhere and results in nothing.

Now with your second paragraph you are conflating issues. I will tell you why I say so. Yes, obviously one can have an infinity of fractions in any number and thus even an infinity of moments in any second or minute. But you see, that only exists within a construct of the mind - such as numbers are. No infinity is actually proven to exist in material things. And yet again, no infinite amount of of causes can cause anything because they never end and thus go nowhere. Thats what the quote I got for you from Quora was saying. When you have a real world, an actual here and now, it could not have arisen from an infinity of causes. Such a chain will remain suspended in perpetual succession and lead to nothing.

Let me just add a little something to this. Have you really reflected on the idea of an infinite regression and considered if it is possible, conceivable or has any real meaning whatsoever?

Because it is nothing but fantasy. Worse fantasy than time travel.

Mayntheemaynn:
well, maybe this link will make it a bit clear ...from science view.
https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/science-the-universe-has-always-existed-really-bad-news-for-young-earth-creationism/

Thanks for the link. I have read through. Its just a hypothesis and says nothing of any note.

But on the portion which talks about God creating out of nothing. Please note that creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothingness) is not the only precept of creation. There is also creatio ex materia (creation at out of some pre existing material) and creatio ex deo (creation from God's very own substance)

People oft observe the wonders and beauties of nature and exclaim - "God is wonderful!" or "Life is beautiful!"

But isn't there in fact more horror, more gruesomeness, more morbid barbarism, more sadism, more brutality in life and nature than there is beauty and wonder?

Mayntheemaynn:
nothing can be "created" it can only be MADE. everything you need is already in existence.

My dear brother, you have me entirely lost.
Its okay, it was a pleasure discussing.

Mayntheemaynn:
for you to have existence, you need non existence, and vice versa. there was never a time that there was not both.

so this your god, a being didnt create existence, and it is a part of it just like the whole existence.
so what exactly did this god create or MADE, and why is this god needed?

The trouble is, you are using "non-existence" in a rather oxymoronic way - in a way that suggests that non existence is some peculiar type of existence. Contradictory.

As to your second paragraph, it's confusing enough, but all I can say is that from my point of view, that being which is worshipped as "God" - Yahweh, Allah, etc - by most people - is probably a being best understood as existing within an already existent reality - and not the ultimate source or root of existence.

It may even be a created being.

FRANCISTOWN:
Many musicians have credited their works to a good amount of sleep.

And weed.

Mayntheemaynn:
nothingness, hindus call it śūnya, where you get your zero from.

Zero really refers to nothingness, but the element I struggle to describe is not nothingness, and nothingness in fact does not exist.

Mayntheemaynn:
or it could be a non-being?

I don't understand this term. What is a non being?

Mayntheemaynn:
so this thing is a being?

Truth is I don't know. It could be. And it could also be an impersonal force.

There is, however, as I said somewhere above, considerable philosophy and science which is tending towards the idea that consciousness is fundamental to reality.

That consciousness forms reality and not the other way round.

PoliteActivist:
But an absolute intangible doesn't go about creating things. An absolute intangible stays an absolute intangible, minds it's own business

This doesn't prevent it from having consequences of its existence - see my post to you above at 2.30pm.

Mayntheemaynn:
for something to be "intangible" you are already contrasting it with the tangible, your god should be above both of it

I hear you. And I get.

However when I say intangible I am expressing the idea of a formless being. It's not just invisible or non material. It's beyond that. That is why I said "absolute intangible."

Someone on this board, PastorAIO, once brilliantly described it as "the tipping point to nothingness."

It's ineffable.

KnownUnknown:
It’s a good afterall and can have any attribute including being tangible and intangible.

Not that I subscribe to the concept of omnipotence, but where anyone subscribes to it, it should not suggest the absurd or illogical. Nothing in reality can be illogical.

Thus omnipotence cannot extend to something such as creating a square circle.

Enough.
Your misplaced and unintelligent sarcasm is not interesting.

KnownUnknown:
Lol. Do you believe it’s not a partial intangible?

Dey go, dey go, dey go.
I don tire for you.

KnownUnknown:
Remarkably stupid is thinking the only way a ball goes into a goal post if it‘s kicked or thinking that your infinite regress bullshit was clarified by that brain dead analogy.

Sweet Jesus.
That you read it that way just saves me my breath.

As I said, all the best.

PoliteActivist:
That's why I reply based on what I perceive as the person's view of God's existence or non-existence as the case may be. If you believe God created man in his own image. That's anthropomorphism, and I reply you based on that

I don't believe God has an image or any form. I believe that God is an absolute intangible.

KnownUnknown:
You have nothing to point out. I know your god is bullshit you are making up based on your ignorance and arrogance. You really think the bullshit you right is impressive. Lmao.

“The ball won’t go into the goal post because someone has to give an order for a person to give an order for a person to give an order to kick the ball”.

I single out the bold word for its remarkable stupidity. And this gives me cause for thanks that I have not bothered engaging you. What a waste.

All the best.

KnownUnknown:
Your posts say otherwise. I’m not an atheist anyway because I know gods are nonsense. There is nothing to engage about because your claims are as nonsensical as all the other god ideas you reject.

Enjoy.
As for the bold, go figure. I have no time to point out the obvious illiteracy.

KnownUnknown:
It just bothers you that your brain addled musings are dead on arrival.

Jack shit bothers me: especially when proceeding from a vacant mind such as yours my dear. You have no clue how far removed I am from being bothered.

Look, I honestly enjoy serious existential discussion, but I have no appetite for the vaccuous and vacant. Nothing you have ever said or written on this board has ever suggested that you have a mind worth engaging. And that's not because you are atheist. There are many atheists I have delightedly engaged for years. It's because you are vacant.

Look ol boy, enjoy your life.

PoliteActivist:
Thanks for calling the write-up "a wonderful exposition", but remember, I am playing devil's advocate for both sides.
So. how would you answer when they ask:

Why do countless people die from natural disasters, diseases, wars, etc. including children, babies, even those still in the womb?
And why do some people deny and deride God daily and still live their full lives sometimes much better than others, while churches and mosques sometimes collapse or are attacked killing worshippers inside, sometimes including babies?

How would you answer these?

Remember the existence of God is an altogether different question from the benevolence or goodness of God.

KnownUnknown:
Another purveyor of nonsense with his “pre-existent” beings.

These shallow, thoughtless and frankly stupid one liners do nothing for the idiocy you attempt to advance.

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*

Can you please stop placing this before each post? Your moniker already declares your intention to be and remain polite and that is sufficient. It is mildly irritating to see this repeated above every post.

Here goes (and don't read anything about my faith from any of it; it is purely intellectual):
An immutable element cannot trigger mutability without itself suddenly becoming mutable. Same applies to all corollaries of it: a self-existent cannot and will not suddenly start creating unless triggered either by change within itself or compelled by an external element. The other possibility is that the "creation" is within the self-exitent itself and have always been there.

Now well done!

For this here, is one of the most apt and proper responses to the self existential argument I have always made. Indeed one would have expected a Lordreed to raise it, but he wouldn't because he doesn't really stop to ponder self existence and the thought development behind the concept. He rejects it beforehand.

Now I have a number of things to say to this.

1. When we speak of a self existent thing, we are talking about something that sits at the root of all reality, of all existence. Therefore do not make the mistake of thinking of it as necessarily something which directly gets up to be involved in special acts of creation such as creating a universe or a creature. It is rather a permanent factor which could not but exist, in other words a factor the non existence of which is impossible. And this is why infinite time is one such factor because it always necessarily exists. Here we do not speak of the scientific time which is simply a dimension of motion within this universe. We speak of that permanent time which does not move, which is still and infinite, and which may be described as the void into which events are interpolated.

2. Again dwell on the fact that the self existent things we speak of are so remote that we even dabble dangerously in attempting to discuss their nature, which is a point I cede to Lordreed when he says that all of these things are far beyond our capacity to know. So we must make room for that and limit ourselves to the little that some elementary logic and reasoning may permit us. And in that wise, let me use the sun as an analogy.

Imagine that the sun was a self existent thing. That it didn't have a beginning and will have no end, but was just there as it is. Now imagine the light it gives out as creation. So the sun, as it were, would not have to change in order to give out light. Giving out light is a function of its nature. Now please and please bear in mind that this is but a rough and speculative analogy, by no means exact to the point at hand but only intended to suggest that a self existent thing needn't be mutable in order to have and give out consequences of its nature.

3. So far, we have been speaking of these self existent things as impersonal forces. But what if, just what if, they actually have consciousness and agency. Because if they do, that would present the possibility that they can undertake definite actions without being mutable. In an analogous way to how you and I can do a single deed without changing the essence of our being.

Now frankly such forces being conscious takes us close to the religious idea of God, but not so close that it is an idea that must be thrown out with the bath water: because it has been suggested in philosophical thought and also in some scientific thinking as well that consciousness may be the fundamental building block of reality. See the double slit experiment and the way particles and waves act differently when observed as opposed to when not observed. This experiment suggested strongly that consciousness actually dictates reality.

As for nothing being something, well try imagining nothing. You can't. So we go abstract. "Nothing" in the abstract, which is the absence of anything, is still part of fabric of reality itself, a manifestation of existence - something!
Also, in quantum mechanics nothing is really something. "Vacuum energy" exists in nothing. The energy is not from particles or anything.

All of this only affirms that nothingness does not exist.

As for those idiotic scientists such as Lawrence Krauss who attempt to say that something may come from nothing because of the behavior of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum, they are woefully wrong because even a quantum vacuum is not nothing. It contains low gaseous energy as you have correctly alluded.

As for cogito, I was expecting you to ask how when I told you it was disproved but you kept mute. It was proved wrong not long after Descartes expounded it. Here goes. You can't prove the existence of something by starting with the assumption that the thing already exists. Thus the statement should be: "There is thinking therefore I am", which of course doesn't make any sense.

I can't see anything disproved here. The idea behind "cogito ergo sum" is sound: the fact that you have thoughts demonstrates that there exists a being thinking those thoughts. This remains true even if the thoughts are an illusion because what that would mean is that there exists a being having that illusion. So it demonstrates to you, the thinker or the hallucinator, that at the minimum, you exist at some level or the other.

KnownUnknown:
What other way is there to know a god other than what some people told you, what some people wrote in a book or you creating one?
At the end of the day, they are all nonsensical ideas.

There seems to be this absurd presumption you make that any idea whatsoever about any pre existent beings, or any being or being said to be responsible for either creation or our existence, whether or not such ideas are religious or non religious, whether or not such are rooted in mysticism or not, in philosophy or not, in science or not, must automatically be nonsensical.

What is sad is that you fail to see how this renders you omniscient and closed minded.

FRANCISTOWN:
I agree that I don't know much about any god. But I know a lot about Yahweh and Allah and I dare say those characters are wicked, irresponsible and extremely evil.

Completely agree.

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*
Well, it seems all over the place because I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.
By the way I was reading some of your debate with LordReed. Ouite erudite of you, except that "anthropologic" instead of anthropomorphic (Knownunknown was mocking you for it😆). As for the debate itself, unlike Reed, I can logically refute your central point (Which is why I always defeat him!).

Typo, and anyone mocking over a typo is beyond pedantic.

[b]And I thought this up all by my thinking therefore I am", which of course doesn't make any sense.

Quite a few interesting thoughts you have put up there and will comment on them when I am before my laptop.

DeepSight:
You simply are not grasping that with and infinite regress no universe would happen. The chain of causation required to cause the universe would never end, and as such no universe would happen.

Very well, but that factor that initiates it cannot be an infinite regress otherwise it would simply never be initiated.

Perhaps my words are not clear enough. I have sourced a quote from Quora which I hope will put across the point more clearly:

An infinite regress of causation is neither possible nor necessary.

Consider that you can never get to the end of an infinity, and for the same reason, we could never get here via an infinity of steps. Another way to look at it is that each step in a chain of causation takes time, no matter how small. So it would take an infinite time to get to the ultimate (so far) effect of the here and now, which is another way of saying: never. - Robin Craig. Scientist & Philosopher.

Please pay attention to the bold underlined.

LordReed:
One crucial element you are not taking into account is this pre universe situation is not time delineated. No time means an infinite regress is very possible.

You simply are not grasping that with an infinite regress no universe would happen. The chain of causation required to cause the universe would never end, and as such no universe would happen.

A cyclical chain doesn't mean it is self existing, the chain itself could have been birthed by something else.

The universe not being self existent doesn't preclude it from being part of a chain of events cyclical or otherwise.

Very well, but that factor that initiates it cannot be an infinite regress otherwise it would simply never be initiated.

BobbieZion:
Because Donald Trump would whoop his ass.

Even Netanyahu dreads Trump.
Trump is a no nonsense person.
I can bet if he was president dey no dare Russia well to invade Ukraine.

You speak ignorantly with confidence.