₦airaland Forum

joyContraMundum:
Good. Good. Now, it's a fact that the sun can be reduced to its atoms, or its fundamental particles even, and this particles have ALWAYS been part of the sun, right? There wasn't ever a time where they "began to exist" in regards to the sun, isn't that right? The sun DIDN'T precede its particles, and THEY'RE WHAT MAKE IT AFTERALL. All those particles came together to form the sun! They ARE the sun. So it goes.

Like I said earlier, if it BEGAN TO EXIST, then it plainly didn't exist before. That's just it. If you're talking about emanation, then it didn't "begin to exist", as it has always existed implicitly in that from which it emanates. And, wait, isn't that pantheism? So, whichever way you put it, the soul remains eternal. IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND WILL ALWAYS EXIST. It wasn't created, neither can it be destroyed.

Not different from what I said earler:

"Souls are only eternal in the past in the sense that they existed as germ-soul seeds within the eternity and infinity of the God-Head from eternity."

That also aligns with the analogy of particles in the sun.

This further aligns with what I said about my aligning with creatio ex deo.
That would simply mean that the soul always existed as part of the very substance of God. It only becomes a distinct self conscious spark when emanated.

I have argued the same point you are making before.
However a soul is not a separate unique being before it is emanated. Its seed has always rested in the Godhead though. So there is a subtle and fine difference. I don't see any particular thing to overly disagree with in terms of what you are saying though.

joyContraMundum:
And this eternal thing which was not eternal in the past was CREATED right?

I would prefer to say "emanated" in order to hep you understand what I mean. In the same way as the sun emanates rays of Light. It cannot but emanate them. And yet the rays of Light are not the Sun itself, even where they contain particles from it.

Then, it's NOT eternal, since it began to exist at some point.

Have you considered that there is a difference between a thing that begins to exist and which will exist eternally into the future and a thing that always existed and always will exist (a self existent).

And to assert that something that was initially nonexistent could be brought into existent is to take the philosophically absurd position of Creatio ex nihilo (Creation out of nothing), and where does that put you? It would be dishonest to hold this kind of belief and still ridicule scientific materialist atheists for believing in a universe which "came from nothing".

No I do not subscribe to creatio ex nihilo. I subscribe to creatio ex deo.

Please review this thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/1000711/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-refutes

Gentlemen in your discussion perhaps its apt you consider and look into the distinction between a self existent eternal thing and an eternal thing which is not eternal in the past: i.e: not self existent.

joyContraMundum:
What exactly do you mean by the God-Head?

The primordial fountain of eternity. God ~ in its original self and form.

joyContraMundum:
Do you agree that souls are ETERNAL? What's your definition of a soul?

Souls are living conscious orbs - immaterial beings carrying a spark of life within them from the God Head.

Souls are only eternal in the past in the sense that they existed as germ-soul seeds within the eternity and infinity of the God-Head from eternity. However they only gradually become distinct and conscious souls as they emanate outwards and enter into the realms of their experiencing for their development towards God Consciousness.

Souls can rise to God Consciousness and Light and they can also descend into utter destruction and darkness in which their essence is dissipated into nether realms and they lose the light spark within them.

joyContraMundum:
In proving the existence of God, this argument can work ONLY against materialist atheists. It's an easy peasy for someone who believes in the reality of the soul (as an immaterial entity, of course), its self existence, and hence its immortality. There are infinite souls, of course (and accept the fact that for anything to be considered immaterial, it must of necessity, be DIMENSIONLESS, or rather to use Descartes's terminology, UNEXTENDED, hence indivisible, because it's zero, ontological "nothing" - this is the only possible precise, unambiguous definition of immateriality).

This fact renders a creator God IMPOSSIBLE because, what the fvck does it mean to create a soul/mind (an immaterial entity)? Well, from NOTHINGNESS? By magic? But nothingness is an impossible state when being used to describe NON-EXISTENCE. You can't create a soul. It is immaterial and eternal. That's why the materialist conception of the Big Bang is just as stupid and ridiculous as Abrahamism. The physical/material/dimensional universe didn't emanate from nothing, it was just dimensionless/immaterial/mental energy being converted to dimensional energy (not CREATING dimensional energy, as that would imply creation from nothing, and nonexistence is impossible.....). By the same token, it's absurd to talk about a creator God creating from nothing. It's impossible. The physical universe is just the product of infinite souls/minds (that's US!!) converting their dimensionless/mental/immaterial/spiritual energy into a dimensional one and stirring (within the parameters of the laws of exisyence ) the matter they have co-created, through trial and error, into more and more complex systems through which mind/life can be meaningfully expressed until there are complex enough systems through which minds can exhibit consciousness.

Since minds are immaterial, they never enter dimensional existence (souls are ALWAYS in the immaterial domain). They're immaterial afterall! They control the material body they're connected to mathematically, and when the control is lost due to many damages done to the process over-time, they can re-enact the connection to a new body (this is what is called REINCARNATION), and the process continues until a mind attains full mastery of material existence, having attained ultimate knowledge of existence as a whole and can exist as a pure mental/immaterial entity without needing the complexity of physical systems to be conscious. This is what it means to be GOD. We are all on a journey towards apotheosis, deification. Our destiny is to become God, and let it sink that no creator God created your soul (it's by definition, IMPOSSIBLE).

Cc. DeepSight

Very interesting take which I agree with in many respects, however I do not see how what you have written obviates the existence of the primordial God-Head from which all souls flow.

Just to address some snippets of your comments Sir - (However note my original revert to you above).

AgentOfAllah:
I may have misunderstood the meaning of "self-existent". Does it connote existence in perpetuity? If something comes into existence, initiates a reaction and goes back out of existence, would that thing be self-existent?

Yes it would appear you have terribly misunderstood the meaning of self existence.

Random fluctuations aren't absurd at all. An example of random fluctuations is in quantum fluctuations that occur in zero-point field. Here, any particle with a wavefunction, due to the intrinsic uncertainties of quantum systems, can spontaneously pop in and out of existence in vacuum. Vacuum, of course, is not "nothing", as it has an absolute minimum energy value. So, while an argument can be made for the self-existence of vacuum, a scenario is conceivable where it has no control over the spontaneous emergence of particles. The only requirement at any given time is that the net change in the field energy of the system = 0; and momentum is conserved. Note that this requirement does not preclude the possibility of localised maxima and minima of energy states that all cancel out when integrated over the whole system. Now, if such a spontaneous fluctuation does occur, from which matter is then created, it is evident that it was not "caused". Or maybe it can be said to have been caused by the random property of quantum systems (but this is mere semantics since the said property is fundamentally undefinable). The fact is that the first cause was, though uncaused (is this what is meant by "self-existent"?), not always existing (or this?). Also, it may even have transformed into something completely different from its initial state so that it is effectively "dead", thus cannot be said to be existing any longer.

This is a sorry load of contradictions: however I am pleased to note that you have taken the trouble to point out the fallacies and contradictions yourself, so no matter.

1. As you already pointed out, the so called vacuum is not "nothing". Examples of virtual particles in quantum vacuums as evidence of things being uncaused are already flawed as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere in the universe and these vacuums referred to in fact contain low gaseous pressure. Therefore from the get go: the "fluctuations" / "particles" referred to are not emerging from nothing and once they are not emerging from nothing, the argument cannot be made that they are uncaused: even where one doesn't understand the cause of the fluctuations.

2. As Iredia pointed out, in the case of fluctuations you ought to avert your mind the to the question - what is fluctuating?

Disclaimer: I do not claim that this is how the universe came about, I'm just presenting an alternative hypothesis whose core assumptions have the distinct advantage of scientific observations.

Your disclaimer is welcome but the idea of random fluctuations/ virtual particles in a quantum vacuum does nothing whatsoever to show things being uncaused or things emerging from nothingness.

Yes, Deepsight set up his logical argument so that there are only two possible sources of existence; namely matter or a self-existent, immutable, immaterial entity. My goal was to show that this was a false dichotomy, since the universe is not only made up of matter. There are many physical phenomena in the universe that are immaterial which could be responsible for the existence of matter, and they don't have to be immutable. In fact, if there was a register of who is who in the universe, matter would not make the cut.

Please go back and read my explanation on why self existent things are necessarily immutable and respond to that. And no, I did not limit the universe to matter, so please read carefully. Matter is permeated by the immaterial - however in referring to the universe in that context, I meant all that it is physically comprised of including its physical matter and physical energies. If all of these were caused by something else, that something else could not be physical itself. It would be non-physical: and this is what I sought to convey.

Please get this point very clear so that it is not a source of confusion in further discussion: when I refer to the material universe I refer to all its matter and physical energies as one continuing thing: When I refer to an immaterial element I do not refer to dark energy or other such elements within the universe. I refer to completely non physical transcendental elements beyond the universe and its material / physical nature.

JackBizzle:
"the palms of you hands are evidence that zeus is a creator"

Zeus I do not know.

This is the nonsense non sequitur you are saying.

No it is not, and you know that.

My body is only evidence of my existence and that I had ancestors. Nothing more.

If you so feel. However I did not speak of just your body. I spoke of you. It is your cup of tea if you feel that your decomposing body is all there is to you.

JackBizzle:
Problems with your arguments;

1) You assume that humans were created without evidence

2) human beings and artificial things like computers and bicycles are very different. You are comparing apples to oranges, as human beings cannot be said to be created in the same way computers are manufactured.

Lol, the same "without evidence" refrain. Just how blind to the evidence presented can you choose to be.
My friend: just take a good hard look at the palms of your very hands.
Good evening.

benzics:
Right, but most theists actually use the "everything must have a creator" premise...

That is wrong: the correct premise is that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause."

Self existent things do not begin to exist.

dalaman:
Was there nothing before the universe began?

No. There was never "nothing".

There was always something in existence. Something other than the universe. Something that sparked the universe.

Please stop repeating the same question in different words.

dalaman:
Was there ever a point where there was nothing?

Such is impossible. Nothingness by definition cannot exist.

AgentOfAllah:
DeepSight, as admirable as your writing skill is, you're a terrible logician, and I'll demonstrate why as you read on:

I'll leave this here because it is the hypothesis which you seek to derive by logic.

Many thanks for your thoughtful queries, I honestly appreciate them and respond as follows.

Self-existence, much like "infinite time" and "infinite space", while clearly defined, isn't a logical statement. It is merely an assumption which you have compelled, with no basis whatsoever, to inhabit reality.

Pray tell: why do you say it is not a logical statement?

It is a most logical and even unavoidable reality that there must exist something or somethings which are self existent?

For if you have contemplated the issues carefully, you must recognize per force that the options are limited to either the existence of a self-existent universe or the existence of self existent Deity (I use the word Deity to describe a transcendental originating existent element). And the reason that this is the case is because if the universe is not self existent, then something caused it to be. If it is self existent, then nothing caused it to be and the matter rests there. However we know that the universe had a beginning and the laws of motion give us to know that where anything material begins to move, it must have been acted upon by an external force or trigger. This leaves us with the only other possibility which is the existence of a self-existent trigger external to the universe.

Remember that this cannot be avoided since we have already shown that "a permanent something" must exist since things exist. That "permanent something" is clearly not the universe as it had a beginning.

We are thus left to consider the existent of a self existent permanent trigger which is itself not the universe.

Note that this is still just a claim. God, in your statement, is an undefined equivalent of a black box system which could consist in/of any number of things. Indeed, there can be many necessary primordial self-existent factors on which all realit(ies/y) rest(s).

This takes nothing away from my argument. In fact I have often said that God being infinite cannot be limited to one thing. Therefore I have often described God as the sum of all self existent laws.

These factors may be mindless processes acting in parallel or may be a chain of uncontrollable/unpredictable reactions. Logic demands definitions, but none is given yet.

That is true, but takes nothing away from the description above of God as the infinite sum of all self existent laws.

You go on to outline your logical argument as follows:

The logical argument above is as technically accurate as proposing "some shape" as the answer to the question: "What is a square?" You've made an argument about "something", "somethings" and "nothing", which is vague, and then gone on to synonymise "something" with "god" without providing clarity on what god means (as I discussed earlier). The futility of such an approach quickly becomes apparent if I replace the word "god" with "jagojago".

Oh no: for this is not the case at all: the particular definition of God which we lay out is well known, and stretches across most or all worldviews as far as definitions go: it is not limited to any ethnic or religious composition of God - but sets out the basics of that which we theologically and philosophically hold: that God is the self existent, eternal, transcendental, intangible creator of all that exists. Each of these words is important as those are the qualities sought to be proven, and not whatever you call Jago Jago, or the religious constrictions of Allah, Yahweh, Olodumare, Zeus, Brahman and all such.

That definition being clear, the logic of the matter as expatiated above deals already with the question of self-existence. For anything at all to exist, something or the other must self-exist already: as there can be no "nothing". This is iron-cast logic already. We know that the universe does not self exist as it had a beginning. Thus the existence of a self existent element which is not the universe is proven. It logically follows that if it is not the universe and if it caused matter to be, it cannot itself be matter. Thus it is proven to be immaterial. Once it exists outside of the universe it is transcendental. Thus the key elements of the definition are proven as logical and it does not matter if you choose to name that element Oloriburuku. That is your business. But the existence of the element is logically clear.

Now to your specific points:

1) One wonders if your concept of "something" is a universal set of all the possible thing(s) that could be "god", including mindless parallel processes and unpredictable consequences of a mindful/mindless cause? This may seem trivial to you, but it isn't, because if "something" is a set group, I am forced to ask why you have bothered distinguishing between "something" and "somethings" in your first 3 sentences. And if it isn't, what informs its semantic singularity? Please clarify.

As I have said above, God is infinite. I have only used the different terms "something" and "somethings" to refer separately to that transcendental permanent self existent element (of infinite nature) which I refer to as God as opposed to all other things that exist as a result. I hope that is clear now.

2) Your points 4 and 5 do not logically follow from point 3. Processes can consume each other so that while a cause can be inferred, the initial process can never be retraced, rendering the initial process effectively "dead" (or impermanent). Chaos theory has well-formulated examples of this.

Even where processes consume each other this does nothing to obviate the principle of causality at play.

3) Point 7 isn't clear at all. Do you mean to say self-existing things are permanently immutable or that they cannot mutate of their own accord. Either ways, this point is baseless. In the former case, while we've never experienced any self-existing object(s), our knowledge of random fluctuations may hint to the possibility of mutations in our hypothetical self-existing object. Permanent existence isn't quite the same as permanent form, as any physicist would point out to you. And if you meant the latter, then there is always the possibility that they can mutate by interaction with other self-existing things. You haven't given a reason as to why two or more self-existing entities cannot co-exist.

A self existent thing cannot mutate. That belies the very nature of self-existence. Now understand carefully why: the laws of motion give us to know that that which begins to move requires a cause or trigger. Mutation is as such and requires a cause or trigger. A self existent thing is causeless and thus things that change logically cannot be self existent as well. A self existent thing will permanently be of the same nature.

Please when you speak of random fluctuations I hope you are not referring to virtual particles. I hope you also understand that the explanation I have just given in the paragraph above should show you why there can be no random mutations with a self existent thing. A self existent thing is immutable.

4) In point 8 and 9, you create a false dichotomy between matter and self-existing objects. Vibrational energy is not matter! Although, it is mutable; and can transform, given the right frequency and momentum, into matter and vice versa. It may or may not be permanent, but so far, nothing we know has ever caused it to annihilate. The jury is still out on this one!

Following from the explanation why self existent things are immutable, you should be able to understand why matter cannot be self existent. Because it is mutable.

5) Needless to say, point 10 is a faulty conclusion.
You say this as if cop outs and paradoxes are the only things that invalidate logic.

As you have seen, your logic is, borrowing from Tesla's expression, a beggar garbed in dazzling eloquence!

I hope you understand now, however I am still available if you have further queries.

thehomer:
What is the point of God?

It is the very point on which all existence rests.
The singular point which is the "necessary permanent something" that makes all existence possible, as opposed to nothingness.

DeepSight:
that the wonder of your existence: in mind, body and spirit: is staggering evidence of the creator or creators.

I just thought to drop a short note on the bold: just to remind you and others that I do not regard mankind on this earth or even this earth or universe as being directly created by the one permanent eternal self existent and intangible element which I refer to as God. However it is evident that this realm has a creator or creators: in the specific case of mankind and this earth I am almost convinced the creators are extra-terrestrial intelligent beings similar to but more advanced than us.

Let me also say that there are doubtless legion superior spiritual beings at a higher dimension responsible for this dimension: and in the natural course of the development of man, he is intended to also develop into such beings and create and superintend worlds as well.

JackBizzle:
What a non-sequitur

It does not follow. I am not evidence for God. No human being is.


Please, make a logical argument and not just a declaration without logic or evidence.

I am truly at a loss sir.
I don't understand what you are saying.

When looking at a created thing, one can see attributes of its creator therein. In simple terms, where one looks at a computer once can discern not just that it was intelligently put together, but that its creator clearly has a need for storage and retrieval of information, for processing documents and programs and the like. Even a bicycle discloses that it has a creator and also discloses attributes of its creator - such as that the creator most likely has a need for movement, and most likely has two legs and two hands.

I don't understand how you can look at a fully formed being, starting as it does from the union of sperm and egg, developing in the wombs into a form with fit-for-purpose body parts: parts intricately designed to aid consciousness and active conscious experience of the world - all of the organs of the Body from the astonishing feat called a brain, to the mind-blowing things called eyes: to the ears, mouth, tongue - The heart, Lungs, Liver, digestive and reproductive systems, nervous and sensory systems: and the fact that therein lives and dwells a mind - of ideas, thoughts, emotions and self conscious will: and say to yourself that this does not of itself disclose a creator or creators who have set that process in movement with very definite intentions for conscious experiencing.

This is why I point to you as evidence of the creator and I can only be befuddled if you do not recognize that the wonder of your existence: in mind, body and spirit: is staggering evidence of the creator or creators.

But, as it happens, you are actually able to look at the totality of your self and declare: "no evidence!"
It can only be that you have a most dim and most low perception of your own being as a creature. You must regard yourself as something lower than an amoeba.

Ol boy, its benumbing.

JackBizzle:
That would be uber paradoxical. How can a conscious being state that he/she is not real?


I dont follow....

You said that there is no evidence or reality for God.
I say that you are the evidence and you are the reality that proves its existence.

Unless you are not real . . . .

JackBizzle:
Like I said- anyone can wrap their head around an eternal being. The issue is that there is no evidence or reality for it,.

Sir Bizzle, Lord of the Way.
Are you saying you are not real?

dalaman:
Many people do.

That is a lie. No one does.

akintom:
How long will it take you to come to realization, that metaphysical science is obsolete long time ago.

It is not obsolete and never will be; also philosophy is not obsolete.

Rational folks now find meaning and answers in physical science sphere.

There is no single living human being who finds meaning in the physical and material alone.

wiegraf:
Intangible constructs require a material basis to manifest

Exactly.

Hence the material world. Don't you get it?

What you describe there seems deterministic and, by extension, materialistic to me

God is deterministic. That does not make it material. It manifests to us in the material.

dalaman:
They only have suppositions and assumptions. Never evidence.

You are the evidence.
Good night.

wiegraf:
So how does god function?

If it's intangible it might as well just be an abstract construct, no?

Intangible things are no less real. Is time not real? Is it tangible?

Or are you saying it's intangible and has a will. If so, how?

The will of God is not as you might imagine human will.

Think of it this way: it is simply the outward emanation of that which cannot otherwise but be: and the laws of God are simply the naturally occurring consequences of the existence of the permanent element referred to as God.

You might understand it as a magnet and its poles. Does the Magnet have a will to attract or repel things?

This is why as a Deist, I do not regard God as making special interventions in our reality. There are beings that do so, but God itself is beyond all that.

Thus when I do pray, which is rare, I address also the spirits of the air and the elements.
As for the last bit, do you refer to my travels to other realms? Are you the Winchie that's been hampering me?[/quote]

KingEbukasBlog:
Its funny they claim to be rational about this rejection of self evident reason and logic from a brain which they suppose came from unguided random processes .

How can they confidently rely on it ?

@ the bold: Now that is a truly super question Mr. Ebuka!
Very well framed!

wiegraf:
Happy New Year good ser!

It seems like you've not updated the gospel of infinitenessess. No new revelations ser?

There have been a lot of revelations and I will issue them soon in my Holy Salad.

JackBizzle:
WORDS ARE FOR THE SALAD! THE WORD SALAD!!!


DEEPSIGHT 3;19

Deepsight walked amongst his disciples and preached to them- "I am the salad of life and whosoever eateth of me shall be blessed with the verbosity of spoken word". Then, his disciples asked "Is this true? Can we be blessed with the gift of the word salad?". Deepsight replied thus- "the salad is open like the gates of heaven towards its righteous communicants; it accepts whosoever believeth in its sophistry."

Then Deepsight told his disciples to start speaking in tongues. As they did, he started walking on air. And his disciples rejoiced thus "we have a great prophet that walketh on air". But then, Deepsight corrected them; "I walketh not upon the air but upon the spoken word of your saladified speaking in tongues". And his disciples rejoiced further "we have a great prophet for where Jesus walketh upon water, he walketh upon words".


And from that day Deepsight was known as the "word walker". Praised be his salad.

https://www.nairaland.com/3466792/deepsight-true-esoteric-knowledge-god/3#51777047

I received the calling from Mr. Bizzle and as such I will write.

wiegraf:
"Who designed god's brain?"

Asked wiegraf for the umpteenth time

God does not and cannot have a brain, such as humans would have, as God is intangible.
Mind you, the beings that designed our physical bodies might have brains.

Wiegraf, have you repented of your mystical ways as per my satanic conjurations?

benzics:
How can you even compare the creator of a computer to something we know nothing about?

We know a computer has a creator because we've seen this computer being created, and we've seen the creator of the said computer, that doesn't mean we should go about assuming EVERYTHING were created...

No my friend, even if you came across the simplest possible imitation of a computer on a barren planet like Mars, you would still logically infer that it had a designer. You would have no choice.

But you see a super computer of unimaginable capacity and you conclude that it had no creator.

What you have actually concluded is that a thing that could make computers, needed no creator itself. Funnily enough this shows you up as contradictory for God is also referred to as a thing that created us which needed no creator. Unfortunately though, we can reference your birth as the beginning of your earthly life: you cannot do same for the permanent element that is called God.

The human brain bespeaks not just design, but intricate design and purpose.
Denying that is simply living in a f.ool's paradise sorry.

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism is the rejection of the existence of Gods

It is actually even the rejection of all self evident reason and logic.

UncleSnr:
Can't the universe be self-existent also?

The universe is not self existent -

1. We know it had a beginning: the big b@ng and as such is not self existent

2. It changes: self existent things are immutable.

benzics:
I know of no God!! And I am certain that all religious gods do not exist, one thing WE(ALL HUMANS) don't know for SURE is if an intelligent designer exists, you might go about saying God is eternal as if it's a fact, that's your own belief and it cannot be a fact!!

Its really odd that you would not deny that a computer requires a creator, but you insist that the human brain - a zillion times the super-computer that any man made computer can ever be: requires none.

Its really funny how you can smugly claim to be rational while making such irrational claims.

But enjoy yourself. On the inexorable day when you step out of your body at death, you will know much better.

KingEbukasBlog:
All scientific evidence prove the universe had a beginning . And this betokens the existence of a creator .

Simple and short: clear and evident.

I don't know how this elementary obvious fact can be so challenging for the atheist.

benzics:
Lol, right, then on what basis do you come to the conclusion that God is eternal, god wasn't created.. Because I've seen you make that inference a lot, as if it's a fact

I have said that God is eternal and was not created. I have never said that that is true because of your existence or the existence of the universe. God being self-existent would exist even if the universe didnt exist.

What does it mean for something to be self existent? It means that it exists by default: it could not but exist - existing is its core nature: it needs no creator. Infinite Time is an example and so is infinite space.

God is that necessary primordial self existent factor on which all reality rests.

Understand:

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. As such, the somethings that exist came from something already existing.

4. Since things exist, then there was always a something because if there was nothing, there would always have remained nothing and never any something.

5. Thus, something eternal and permanent exists.

6. Anything which is eternal and permanent is self-existent.

7. Self existent things are not mutable by reason of their self-existent and permanent nature.

8. Matter is mutable and changeable and therefore not self existent.

9. Ergo, matter is not that which is the permanent self-existent something.

10. Ergo, that which precedes all things is a permanent, self-existent, non material essence.

11. This is what is referred to as God.

No cop out, no paradox, simple and clear philosophical logic.