₦airaland Forum

lexy2014:
pls when did questions become lecture?

if you say that "It re emphasizes the transience of life and the vanity of material wealth and power", is he the first person who had wealth and died?

if you say " It reminds us how our lives are as a candle in the wind, and thus hopefully reminds many to live is a useful and meaningful way", is Wigwe's death you have heard of this year that it is his death that now reminding you to live your life a useful and meaningful way?

where in my second question were you asked if it is riveting to me or otherwise?

how is "the spectre of sudden death at the height of material accomplishment and astonishing privilege" simply riveting?

Good night.

lexy2014:
if you say that "It re emphasizes the transience of life and the vanity of material wealth and power", is he the first person who had wealth and died?

if you say " It reminds us how our lives are as a candle in the wind, and thus hopefully reminds many to live is a useful and meaningful way", is Wigwe's death you have heard of this year that it is his death that now reminding you to live your life a useful and meaningful way?

where in my second question were you asked if it is riveting to me or otherwise?

how is "the spectre of sudden death at the height of material accomplishment and astonishing privilege" simply riveting?

Ol boy enjoy yourself oh. I no pay you school fees, so dont waste your time lecturing me.
Good night.

lexy2014:
instructive in what way?

It re emphasizes the transience of life and the vanity of material wealth and power. Now, do not think that i am saying such success is useless - no - certainly not. I am simply saying the event reminds all just how quickly all such can disappear or be snatched away. It reminds us how our lives are as a candle in the wind, and thus hopefully reminds many to live is a useful and meaningful way.

how is "the spectre of sudden death at the height of material accomplishment and astonishing privilege" simply riveting?

If its not riveting for you, leave it. After all, a story may be riveting to one person and boring to another.

eepeepook:
You children should stop trying to paint the man as a hero. He was a businessman who lined his pockets and enjoyed his earnings.

I haven't seen anyone painting him as a hero. Its the spectre of sudden death at the height of material accomplishment and astonishing privilege that is simply riveting.

And instructive.

LordReed:
I can readily agree since at the moment of inception of this universe there was only energy and matter came latter.

This energy you speak of is of a physical nature, no? And it is mutable. To that extent, it is not eternal in the past - i.e: it could not have always existed. Do you see this - if you do not, I will offer an expatiation of that point.

superCleanworks:
She went in to get the knife by herself but guess who will receive the blame.

Poor innocent Shaitan, who was probably minding his own business somewhere else sipping wine and whisking his tail to discourage the fanged flying insects which accompany him everywhere.

LordReed:
Let me clarify. First we don't know what the thing that preceded the universe was. We don't know if it was matter or energy or magic. Then after the universe began we have no way to investigate beyond it so that too is closed of to us. It is only within this universe do see that matter comes from other matter or energy so if any inference was to be made it would be whatever preceded this universe was some form of matter or energy. I won't make such an inference though since it is an unknown.

Clearly we have to take a step back. I can see now the problem with my not having explained why the universe cannot be eternal in the past, relying on the fact that you concurred that it had a beginning. That was a problem. Because there is a factor in there that we do not necessarily agree on, but glossed over. Here it is.

Matter cannot be eternal in the past because it is mutable. A thing that changes form cannot be eternal in the past.

Now, this is a statement that a lot of people seem to struggle with whereas some immediately grasp. I would ask that you take a few minutes to dwell carefully on it, and see if you find agreement with it before we proceed. If you don't, I will attempt an explanation.

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*
That's why I say atheism is by far the most STUPID postion a person can adopt. See how you did not attempt to answer the questions as to where your thoughts come from? Or where your dreams come from?

You haven't posted any question to me. That was my first post to you. So please don't make presumptions - I am not an atheist
.

And yes, you are appealing to authority. Einstein, no matter how brilliant, was only human. Nothing becomes true simply because he said it. And he had all the limitations of perception of reality that human beings have.

LordReed:
That is an unknown. All we know at the moment is our universe. So no I can't make such a conclusion.

You don't seem to be following your own statements and the inferences and deductions necessary therefrom.

You can't say that all existing matter comes from previously existing matter/ energy and then turn around, when told that this implies previously existing matter / energy outside or aside from the universe, to say oooops, this is an unknown.

If you wished to hold it to be unknown then you should not have posited that all matter comes from previously existing matter/ energy.

LordReed:
We have never seen any physical matter that didn't come from another physical matter or energy so I disagree that this is a logical inference. I see nothing upon which to make such an inference.

Well in that case you necessarily conclude that there exists physical matter / energy outside of or aside from this universe.

Yes?

LordReed:
I disagree. That we don't know what preceded the universe doesn't give us leeway to assume that it was immaterial.

It's not an assumption but a logical inference.

If physical matter had a beginning and came from something else, that other thing could not logically be physical matter.

LordReed:
There is no fear. I try to make sure I am clear in what I am saying.

Yes I agree that the universe had a beginning, it could not come from nothing - as nothingness does not exist. I also agree that it came from a previously existing thing.

Excellent. So what remains is to see to what extent we can logically deduce what that previously existing thing is.

Now there is a simple way I have oft phrased this (and it is not unique to me, nor did I originate this reasoning). Here goes:

That if the universe consists of physical things then that pre existing thing could not be physical. It would have to be non physical. That if the universe is bound in time then that pre existing thing would have to be timeless. That if the universe is bound in space, then that pre existing thing would have to be spaceless. The rationale for all this being that the pre existing thing could not have the same attributes as the universe which it caused: otherwise we are no longer speaking of a universe which had a beginning.

And this leads us to discern initial qualities of that pre existing thing as something immaterial beyond time and space.

Any worries so far?

KnownUnknown:
Lol, you forgot the third part of the holy Trinity of bullshit, “eternal in the present”.

No one invited daft commentary to this conversation. Please go and rest.

PoliteActivist:
(** It seems my good friend LordReed has been banned. But I have a feeling he's still here with us )

😆Quite funny. But funny aside, let's analyze this Einstein. Have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from. Or where your dreams come from? Those are the kind of things Einstein spent months on end thinking about before comming forward with a position.
Considering that Einstein is arguably the most insightful human that has ever lived (in terms of insight into the true nature of our reality), it is not wise to dismiss his position on that topic as "Appeal to Authority"

It is appeal to authority and nothing says he could not be wrong in any of his conclusions. Even scientific ones. New science continuously upends old science.

LordReed:
I guess my gripe is with the use of eternal. I can agree that whatever preceded the universe existed as a necessary element.

This suffices for the purpose of our discussion.

Eternal and its association with time is at conflict with what we understand of the conditions preceding the birth of our universe as we know it.

In truth though, you are showing a needless fear of clear concepts and clear words, almost as though you are frightened of being trapped by self evident logic. A thing which has always existed is eternal in the past - no mystery there, contrary to the way one clown tried to scoff at the phrase yesterday. If something has always existed, it is eternal in the past, simple. A thing that will always exist in the future is eternal in the future.

So let us proceed. Of the two options - either that the universe has always existed or that it had a beginning, we are clearly going with the latter. I appreciate this otherwise I may have had to labor to explain why it could not be that the universe is eternal in the past. Now, since we agree that the universe had a beginning, and we also agree that it could not come from nothing - as nothingness does not exist, then we per force also agree that it came from a previously existing thing.

All good so far?

LordReed:
Permit me to qualify my answer.

1. Time was not eternal in the past, therefore whatever existed before time began cannot be measured by time.

2. The universe as we know it now began as time began.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to stick with the common scientific understanding of time as we know it, to wit: a dimension of motion. Because if we were to venture outside that, what a terrible flux we will find ourselves in.

Now it is interesting that I referred to the universe but your qualifications are about time. No matter, no pun intended. Let us just get the logic clear -

1. We both agree that something cannot come from nothing - it being the case that nothingness does not exist

2. Therefore if a thing exists, given that it could not have come from nothing, then it either -

. . . (a) Came from something already pre existing or

. . . (b) Is eternal in the past (i.e: it always existed) - as a necessary element. I trust you understand what "necessary" as opposed to "contingent" means in philosophy.

Abagworo:
I'm still shocked some people actually believe Emefiele stole personally . Truth is that they are looking for every possible loophole to indict and punish him because of the cashless policy which he introduced for the good of Nigeria which the Powers that be felt was against their political interest.

Your head is screwed and you deserve great suffering on a permanent basis.

Tareq1105:
That would be in 2063.

Tinubu till 2031

North East till 2039

South South till 2047

North Central till 2055

Obi at age 93 till 2063.

I would have gone then.

Why SS before SE when SS has had GEJ.

PS: I am SS.

wirinet:
That would amount to an invasion of a sovereign country. The coup is the internal affairs of Niger, so unless the Nigerien people themselves ask for help, it's non of our business. Did you see the Nigeriens themselves protest the change of government? In fact many celebrated. You cannot cry more than the bereaved.

Niger Republic coup is not the first, and would not be the last. The military took over in Myanmar a few years ago and the defacto head of government, aung san suu kyi is still in prison as we speak, no one threatened yo invade Myanmar. China, US, Russia and its neighbours are continuing life as normal.

The question is not whether it would be right or wrong under international law, but whether it would be strategically apt in a Machiavellian context.

KnownUnknown:
Educated or uneducated. They both lead to the same nonsensical conclusion. It’s not a presumption but a fact.

So far from being a fact, it is a daft and illiterate statement which betrays both shallowness and ignorance.

Good night.

LordReed:
Yes I agree.

Thank you.

Step two. The universe being "something" therefore, we can further surmise that either -

1. It is eternal in the past

Or

2. It had a beginning.

Fair enough so far?

KnownUnknown:
If he believed in a god, his god wasn’t any different than an uneducated person’s god.

This right here is stupid presumption.

KnownUnknown:
You shouldn’t have.

Stay in your lane and mind your business.

What the hell is “nothing”?

To talk about the world, existence, the universe, or whatever else we call it is to talk about something. There is no such thing as “no thing”.

Of course there is no such thing as nothing and that is a fundamental philosophical plank in the upbuilding of the rational argument for the existence of God - to wit: that an eternal something necessarily exists.

Fact of the matter is that the concept of god is nonsense and no amount of rhetorical masturbation is going to detract from that.

The nonsense called god is wholly dependent on the vocabulary of the person presenting the idea and the credulity of the other person.

At the end of the day, it will still boil down to absolute rubbish.

This is nothing but cowardly. If you wish to come at a concept, come at it with logic. Don't attempt cheap cowardly escapisms such as trying to assert that the word has no meaning when it evidently does especially in the context of a specific discussion.

Any coward can do what you are doing here with any discussion and it is simply cheap and unworthy. Frankly i feared Lordreed would play the definition game with "something" and "nothing" - to his credit, he has not. Let him be. If that is the game that suits you, you are simply tiresomely pedantic or intellectually dishonest or both.

Gods can do all things except speak or show themselves. Even a baby can babble, a kid can bleat, a kitten can meow but a god is utterly incapable of saying a mumbling word.

This was the only interesting bit with what you wrote. Has it occurred to you that the "speech" of even an alien would be different from from ours? How much more different would we expect the "speech" of a transcendental being to be? Such speech could simply be universes.

And I am not saying that that is so. I am pointing out how absurd it is to expect a transcendental element to speak pidgin English or Cantonese.

LordReed:
Nope that is not a reasonable deduction at all. In my illustration I clearly stated that the question should be filled with substance not imagination and that filling it with imagination renders it nonsensical. We've been here before and I told you I am not opposed to discussing imagination as long as we know we are merely speculating. What part of what I wrote is difficult to understand that you need to keep misrepresenting it?

Ok, let us start filling the box in a few short logical steps.

Step one, do you agree that something cannot come from nothing?

LordReed:
Once again you are trying to put words in my mouth I never said. Why create strawmen of my words when what I said is clearly written?

No matter what you say, that is what is reasonably deduced from your statement that the very concept of God is nonsensical.

And Jeez, deduction aside, you did say so. As well as saying that one may discuss it, so long as one so acknowledges it as nonsensical.

So how am I putting words in your mouth. I am quoting you.

LordReed:
Glad you realize I am addressing the concepts not the question. If after asking the question you begin to form an image or concept with no clear evidence why such a concept should be plausible then it is mere fantasy. Think of the question like an empty box, we fill it with substance to answer the question. If we attempt to fill the box with imagination while claiming we have substance then we have just done nonsense. That is where the concepts of gods are, filling the question of a creator with nonsense.

Your opinion on the nature of those who discuss FSM doesn't take away from what it is.

Your position is still rather escapist. Because it seeks to cast the matter of the existence of God as too nonsensical to be discussed (or say that if discussing it, we must acknowledge it as nonsensical). The laws of causality alone, (whether anyone disputes them with voodoo quantum physics or not) are sufficient to render the question a sane, meaningful and sensible matter to address.

LordReed:
You are the one being ridiculous. Where did I say the question was nonsensical?

Here -

LordReed:
I am not saying I don't know how it is used, I am saying the entire concept is nonsensical. You can use nonsensical concepts in discussion, example FSM. I am not opposed to that along as we acknowledge what it is.

Now I know very well that you will say you said nonsensical concepts can be used in discussion so long as we acknowledge them as nonsensical. The problem is that the concept of a creator is not by itself nonsensical. Many ideas attached to it by religion may be nonsensical but the bare concept of the existence of a creator is by no means nonsensical.

Now, again, this is not to say a creator exists, even if I personally believe so. It is simply to say that on the face of it, looking at the nature of the world, the concept of a creator is not nonsensical, much less so nonsensical as to be thus meaningless in the way you have alleged.

FSM is the concept of gods taken to its fully absurdity meant to highlight the nonsensical nature of the entire concept. It's funny you can't even see that.

I understand it perfectly and I repeat that it was created by and is discussed by idiots.

LordReed:
I am not saying I don't know how it is used, I am saying the entire concept is nonsensical. You can use nonsensical concepts in discussion, example FSM. I am not opposed to that along as we acknowledge what it is.

This is ridiculous. It is not nonsensical to ask the question as to if a creator exists.

FSM on the hand is a mockery created and discussed by idiots.

LordReed:
There is no attempt at escape here. I have recently begun to see that the entire conceptualisation captured in the word god is mostly nonsensical.

This, again, is a vague response. I specifically said, the word "God as used in these discussions."

It is evident to any serious discussant in the atheism/ theism debate that the issue at play is simply that of a pre existing creator or designer.

Any discussant who claims not to know this is being either escapist, tiresomely pedantic or intellectually dishonest.

LordReed:
I used to consider myself an agnostic atheist but now I identify with igtheism.

With every respect, old friend, I friend this a little escapist, to be mild. Because I doubt that most people involved in discussions on the existence of God can genuinely claim to have no idea of what the word "God" as used in these discussions refers to. And no, its not a question of "which god?" Because while there may be differing conceptions of "God" there is no doubt that in these discussions the concept of God is basically that of a supreme being said to be the creator of all else that exists.

Whether he is Jesus, whether he sent Mohammed, whether he cares about the way you live or die, where he is even a "he" at all, all of these things are secondary and vary from conception to conception. What does not vary is the fundamental idea of a source creator being.

zebszebs:
And how is this information relevant to anything?

You are only providing fodder for the "vanity upon vanity" religious-brainwashed people, who will use his death to assuage their feelings of angst they have against themselves for not having "made it" in life, like the deceased.

You are the one obsessed with material success. By all means strive to "make it" but please never lose sight of the bigger picture. This world is not home.

Aiye l'oja, Orun n'ile.

That translates to mean: the world is a market and heaven is our home.

PS: I don't subscribe to any religion.

Nbote:
Perfect for plausible deniability

I think you are an Obote man.