₦airaland Forum

lefulefu:
There is a story i saw on cnn about a shootout that happened in a cinema house in 2012.A gunman walked inside a cinema started shooting at ppl while they were watching a movie titled the dark night rises.one of the female survivors told reporters how her boyfriend pulled her down to the floor and laid on top of her.He collected a bullet in the back and died in the process but she survived.It happened in the US.Some ppl dey ready to die for love but those are ppl who are really in love and not in lust.

I would be very happy and even honoured to die in such a way.
Protecting my loved one.
Beautiful

champ0621:
Have you ever read the bible? The New Testament? Have you heard of Jesus?

I tire for the girl o. Person no go die for love?
what's a better thing to die for?

Only read the 1st page of this thread and sick already.... so would not say much.

@ Jollyjoy. People have killed themselves for love throughout history. In fact, that is history and life.
@ Archenemy. Stop trying to educate her. A person who has not seen Titanic (Not to speak of its underlying principles) might just be uneducatable

thehomer:
Huh? What evidence do you have of these "thoughtwaves"? Or are you just making stuff up? Water can carry thoughts? Please can I have some of what you're smoking?

You really and truly don't know anything.

Really and truly.

plaetton:
Quantum physics is not a magic circus. We understand the basic framework. Quantum particles are also the basic framework of matter, life and existence.
That Much we know.
The experimentally observed phenomenom whereby observation itself seem to affect the behavior of quantum particles is an indication that Mind itself, either has quantum mechanical properties, or, is itself, a product of quantum mechanics.

So, my mention of "quantum arena" in reference to the workings of the mind, was well grounded.

It really emerges you have yet to grapple with the simple question I asked you.

And you still don't seem to grasp the relevance or irrelevance of your own introduction of quantum issues into the matter.
I have to run for now, but will surely do a deep dive later.

But before I return please, please, please and please answer me these two questions which are at the heart of our discussion:

1. Are thoughts physical things
2. Are ideas physical things

STUDENTS GUIDE: THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THEY ARE PRODUCED BY PHYSICAL THINGS. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THOUGHTS AND IDEAS THEMSELVES ARE PHYSICAL IN NATURE.

Considering your escapist nature, maybe you should first answer if thoughts and ideas exist at all, before answering the questions above.
Danke!

@ Wiegraf.

Arrgh.

Later.

^^^ I am sure you are confused about the difference between the physical nature of the brain and that which it produces. . . .

http://physics.about.com/od/QuantumConsciousness/f/IsConsciousnessQuantum.htm

Nothing here, and in a zillion other writings on same - and nothing in your suggestion answers my simple question on thoughts.

Talk later. Have to go now.

plaetton:
Lol.
First of all, you Say mind is metaphysical. And you are OK with that, huh?
Sounds good to your ears, huh? OK.

I Say mind is quantum physical.
Are you also OK with that?

Now, tell me the difference, if there are any.

The difference is that I know the meaning of metaphysical and experience my being as such every waking moment of my life.
You cannot say that you know your being as quantum-physical or experience your being as such.

No, I do not resort to quantum physics when all fail.
But I point out, and urge you to pay attention to developments in the field of quantum physics.
Yes, we have barely scratched the surface in this new field of knowledge. That is the more reason we should pay special attention and look towards learning and resolving some of the most vexatious issues of existence.
Unlike you and your accolytes, I do not pontificate, but merely point to new discoveries, new theories, science based theories that should rightly replace old superstitions.

If this is the case then how dare you raise the quantum arena at all in answer to my question on thoughts?
Does this not show you up to be simply "name-dropping" something that sounds more intellectual and scientific to your ears even when you confess you have no clue if it has anything whatsoever to do with the question at hand?

This is worse than what the religionists do: its also hypocritical, pretentious and seeks to ape the Jones in a laughable manner since you confess you have no clue as to whether or not it is relevant to the question!

Like I reminded someone yesterday, there is no excuse for ignorance in this information age.

I don't even know what you are saying here.
As far as I am concerned, you have just been shown up again.

A simple question on thoughts and minds and you refer to the Quantum Arena. . . . of which you say you know nothing!

Plaetton. . . . . . . I despair for you. You are a blind man seeking to lead the blind.

plaetton:
This buttresses my point that, in the quantum arena, there is little that distinguishes physical and non physical. All can be understood by simply looking at energy, vibrations and frequency. That is the universe in a nutshell.

What do you understand about quantuum physics that enables you so so glibly attribute any phenomena that you do not understand to quantum effects?

I want you to answer me very specifically on this question.

I say this because: and I want you to take this point most seriously and be honest about it:

1. Is it not true that quantum physics is as yet an emerging field barely understood at all - and even hardly properly defined in terms of implications as yet?

2. If (1) above is true, then do you not agree that you are committing the exact same sin you accuse religionists of when they attribute phenomena they cannot understand to God - "God did it"?

For is it not true that you do not know if things like thoughts are carried at all in any quantum way - and yet, for all phenomena you do not understand, you are happy to simply interpolate a field of study of which next to nothing is known as yet?

Is this not exactly what you are doing?

How is this different from the God-did-it fellows, tell me?

For, in answer to any possible question I may throw you, and for which you do not know the answer but wish to deny a spiritual or Divine answer, you would of course simply say - "The Quantum Arena Did it!"

The same quantum arena of which you know exactly nothing.

Diddly Squat. Jack. Zilch. Nada.

Mind is considered non physical only because it is a waveform. As a a waveform, it must conform to mathematical laws. That makes it measurable, malleable and even capable of being artificially simulated.

Mind is not a waveform. Mind emits and transmits through waves.

And all this can be understood, or at the least, investigated via the scientific system.

Only the physical manifestations of mind can be so assessed.
Unless of course you will extend the definition of science into the meta-physical.

And that is tenable for there are meta-physical sciences, which I zm not sure you would admit of, but which are real sciences too.

Mind is metaphysical.

^^^ Even water can carry thoughts. What am I saying, thats going too crude. Thoughtwaves can carry thoughts from one mind to another.
I dont know if the relevance of this to your question hits you.

plaetton:
Let me ask you again.

If mind is the overlord of matter, different and Independent of matter, how come physical, geometrical and mathematically configure molecules of matter affect mind in profound and measurable ways?
In fact, a depletion of seratonin in the neurons often lead to the denial and disentanglement of the self, and suicide?

Dopamine molecules, on the other hand, provide CONSCIOUS FEELINGS of euphoria and sense of wellbeing.
How come?
Are feelings not simple products of chemical reactions?
Why are you rather aversive to simple scientific explanations?

These are elementary.

The simple answer to your question is that those chemical interactions build the physical support for mind in the physical realm. Therefore, in the physical realm, such interactions affect the apprehension of mind in the physical realm.

Mind is always there. These material elements are simply like a tool for the deployment of mind into the physical.
If the material tools are dismantled or incorrectly assembled, mind cannot deploy or cannot properly deploy into the physical.

Let me give you an example: computer hardware and software.

Take the software to be mind, and the hardware to be matter.
If the hardware is not correctly assembled, the software cannot properly deploy.

But the software exists as information regardless of the hardware.

In fact, even if you destroy the hardware completely, the software - the information - still exists - no?

Capisce?

plaetton:
Lol.
I am less concerned about the rankings of Canaanite deities. My point was that we reboot our search for the truthful history of humanity by trying understand the real experiences that these ancient peoples from Canaan, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa were trying to communicate to us.


Secondly, I have never been aversive to the persuit of matters considered spiritual. Infact, I have spent considerable time devoted to such persuit,.. until such a time that I came to the conclusion that so-called spirituality and religion are of the same mindset.
They are both grounded on self-centeredness, and dabble in things that are not real, fantasies, so to speak,..not too different from childhood fantasies about Toothfairies and coins under the pillow.

Thereafter, I chose to ground my worldview on terra firma, on reality, on real human issues.

My personal philosophy is that I don't deserve eternal life, or paradise in a crystal palace, if I don't understand this very life and add whatever tiny value I can to its evolution.

In that Regard, I cannot be happy, aloof in my spiritual mumbo jumbo, if my neighbor or my fellow citizens suffer one type of oppression or another.
I cannot close my eyes or look away, while my landscape is continually laid desolate.

Religion, the LETHAL MYTHOLOGIES of foreign religions are mentally debillitating generations of my citizens.
There is an urgent imperative to Push Back and Roll Back LETHAL MYTHOLOGIES.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, that is what I Attempt to do here. It is the very very least that I can do.

Back to spiritual persuit and the questions of existence, well, I have long thrown my lot with the scientific system of inquiry.
I suggest you do the same too.

There is no question of existence that science cannot probe and offer a satisfactory answer, now or in the future.

Scientific system of inquiry remains by far the most reliable arbiter of reality.

All of this I long know to be true of your views and who you are and that is fine, save that the statement in red in the above is terribly wrong because science deals with the physical, whereas non physical things, elements and planes do exist.

In addition, you do not need to reflect carefully to see that that statement of yours is an omniscient statement. It is a statement that can only be made by one who is omniscient. I therefore today christen you Plaetton the omniscient.

In the blue bold, you have actually touched upon a little of that which you are here to do in this earthlife before proceeding to the next. But we shall discuss that much later when you awaken a little.

Also, you need to stop comparing the theo-philosophical question of the existence of God to toothfairies. It makes you appear unserious or simply illiterate in philosophical matters.

Or worse, just shallow.
And you are not shallow, Plaetton.

plaetton:
^^^
Lol.

You have to understand that apart from having to flog you for bad thinking patterns, I also want you to learn and grow.
You Won't do that by getting a pat on the back from Depardo, the master Chef of wordsalads.

Learn and grow? Lol. By arguing through tooth-fairies?

That's your "master-class?"
What sort of Barney class are you running mate?

plaetton:
AllNaijaBlogger,
You are heading in the right direction, but many many ways to go. You need to purge your mind of the falsehoods and frauds perpetuated by the yahweist.

There was no one God.
There is were many many Gods (or beings or whatever you choose to call them).

Yahweh was just one among about 600 or so of them present in the Earth at that time.
Yahweh was even a junior God in the Canaanite pantheon.

Even the ancient hebrews served and wirshipped other Gods. Its all there in the bible.

So the idea that Yahweh is the Creator of the universe is the biggest crock of Bullshyte ever served.
This where mankind has perpetually decieved.
This is where truth should start.

Its rather amazing that for one who derides religion so much, you are choosing to start your search for truth by sifting through Canaanite gods and their rankings. This is most impressive, isn't it - for a so called skeptic.

Why don't you, as I have always urged you, turn to the pure philosophical and spiritual question of an ultimate origin: address that at its level?

Why are you perpetually unable to do this?

You say that the search for truth should start from correcting mis-impressions about the rankings of canaanite deities - and yet you scorn the existence of the ONE TRANSCENDENT GOD as a belief in the tooth-fairy.

With this garbled twisted mindset, how am I supposed to believe you do not require the attention of the very same psychiatrists you oft accuse me of needing?

Can you see yasef?

Ah Jesu Christi. Amadioha. Ifa. Shango. Ogun.
Papa must sha hold pikin hand. . . .

wiegraf:
considering this, how ai would exist without spirit power escapes me.

That is why it is called "artificial," dear Mr. hare-brain, you for whom English is clearly poison.
Computers today may be called a form of same, and are not asserted to have souls or spirits.

mayhaps you can clarify? if spirit power is not necessary, then what is the point of the soul?

For self conscious existence of a living being.

why the requirement that mind be responsible for the creation of the material if mind itself requires the material?

Mind has never required the material. The material is merely a temporary - and very temporary - vehicle for the interpolation of mind into physical realms: which themselves are a creation of Mind.

or, are you suggesting that these scientists are going to piss all over known natural laws and create a.....spirit?

If the time comes that they are able to create the sort of biological tool that mind utilizes, that is not inconceivable. Bear in mind though, (no pun intended), that they accomplish same with mind.

or what? are you going to assert there are different types of 'mind'? based on what? an a$$pull? after you're shown working ai you're going to claim there's another sort of intelligence that works using...magic?

The only people that subscribe to magic of the sort that you lot accuse others of, are people such as yourself who insist that the great cosmos and all that it bears simply just "poofed" into existence abracadabra. You are the ones subscribing to such dreamland nonsense. We rather logically insist that it has a logical and intelligent precursor.

AllNaijaBlogger:
The bible is written by humans. There is a limit to human language. Just as we find it lacking and difficult to describe the colour blue, it would have been difficult for them to describe the powerful being in words in a book.

These ancient scribes did their best to describe what they experienced with this being.

Take an aeroplane to a remote village and tell them to describe it. You will see all manner of hilarious descriptions- "flying iron box" etc

Thumbs up. We are getting somewhere. But Plaetton and Wiegraff know this elementary fact Watson.

^^^ Haven't read what you have written above, except the first line, and I see you are finally ready to engage. I will read it. And I hope the proper discussion will start.

Good afternoon bro.

Eating and having some wine now with family. Will revert shortly.

AllNaijaBlogger:
@ Deepsight,

Could you stop fooling around and get more involved in the topic of discussion?

I really dont know you, so I will continue to be respectful and give the benefit of the doubt until I understand what you are really on about.
I strongly believe that if you read properly the discussion, and if you are intuitive enough, you will understand where I am coming from.

But I dont know you yet, so even that is a presumption.

You see, the gentlemen talking above are persons I have gisted here with for years. I know them, and I dont have time for their nonsense. Any Human being who is not intuitive enough to sense God without even the need for argument is quite sorry and dead. I am sure you know this.

Look, I may have come across as brash in my posts on this thread: but believe me there is a reason for it.

Intuition is life. Intellect is Matter. And Insensitivity to reality is death.
I don't know if you get that.

I will hope you do.

If you are serious about a serious conversation, I will be happy to have one.

I have no respect for Plaetton and Wiegraff and Co. They are little more than animals - and I mean no insult there.

Plaetton is a notch better than Wiegraff, But souless creatures both.

I relate with souls. Not with mindless intellects.
Nuff said.

If you want to discuss seriously, I will be happy to engage.
Good Afternoon.

wiegraf:
After all this time, shouldn't you be more careful? Can you honestly tell us you have a case, or that your spiced up $hitte hasn't been disposed of repeatedly?

The bulala comes down, you'll cry then run for months

Take a cue from your disciple op, who's suddenly become much better behaved it's near surreal

Crazy fella. Long time.

I have no respect for the above comment because it's simply a repeat of Plaetton's cowardice.
No point made, just wagging fingers.

PS: You should know by now I couldn't give a toss about impressing you folk with any pretence at good behaviour.
You are simply not worth it fellas.

Any bothersome good behaviour towards you folk would be casting pearls before swine.

Lol. Bulala. You honestly imagine your rank illiteracy to be intellectual bulala.
What can I say? Birds of the same feather. This is the same way Plaetton's calls the tooth fairy hard teaching.

You guys are just kids, honestly. If I didn't know better I would think you were 12 years old or so.

Anybody around here honest enough to now admit what your ol Bro prophesied here?
What a laugh.
Human beings.

Kay17:
But you said the quality of self-existence is due to the immutability and unchanging nature of God, therefore if God passes from one state to another, God is in a flux as a result and he can not be said to be self-existent. The emergence of the Universe as a piece of God is a flux. Breathing in and out is an example of change/motion (which technically could change who I am, from living to dead. But that aside)

It is not said that God is passing from one state to another, but that God's emissions are.
The Universe is not here said to be a piece of God, but a consequence of God.

This is no more than your breath is a consequence of you - and not a piece of you. In reality it is just a consequence of your body and its connection to life, but no matter.

The analogy of the Yugas simply shows the universe to be perhaps a consequence of the contant "breath" (if you like) of God. This does not mean that the nature of God changes.

In this, please also bear in mind a very core argument I made here once:

Someone contended that since change is constant, then God must change, i.e - be mutable.

I responded stating that if the fact that change is constant never changes, then what do you say? Do you get that?
If something is eternally subject to change and change is its core nature - then its nature as something that always changes never changes. That nature is immutable.

Nevertheless that was a simple revert to show that argument as not thorough enough.
In simple terms, the beating of a heart does not thereby change the essential nature of a heart - especially if like God - the beating heart is taken to beat eternally.

Every beat would be a moment of change to its external environment without changing the core nature of the heart.
Is this clear to you?

And in all of this you must yet bear at the back of your mind that which I said about the universe not being a direct creation of God.

I will try employing your analogy as an explanatory device. Light emanating from the Sun does not carry the Sun with it, but contains heat which it carries from the Sun, The heat is like a marker and an inheritance from the Sun. That is the kind of substance I'm talking about. Comparing the Universe to God, they are at opposing poles of reality like light and darkness.

I see little to contradict in the above and it does not detract from that which I am saying.

You have turned the Universe into the reference point and lens through everything is defined. Transcendence ought not be defined in reference to the Universe, rather to itself.

No actually: I only make reference to it to discuss with the materialist. Everyone should know anyway, as Anony has said, that the nature of reality is metaphysical.

In truth, the entire universe and material world that you see is nothing but a sort of holographic projection - a temporary illusion into which we are projected and from which we are extracted at death.

That is the real truth, but I see that you are not ready to take the discussion that far, so let us continue for now where we are.

Besides, the word "transcendent" has a dictionary definition which should suffice for this purpose.

plaetton:
C'mon Depardo,
Can you not see that I am enjoying watching you sweat in anticipation of imminent emasculation?
Waiting to be chopped up piece by piece is already eating you up. Lol

I am A saddist in this very case.

And by the way, big lol to " kettle of insects".
You certainly need more humor in your word salad recipes.

But, literally and figuratively, a kettle of insects are more proteinacous, healthy and life - giving than stale wordsalads.

After all, John the Baptist lived exclusively on insects, locusts, not wordsalads.

Sweat, lol.

You should know your man much better my friend.
I am not interested in what you have to say - for two reasons - the first is that you have nothing to say and we both know this.
The second reason, I will have to water down - namely, we both know you are not up to scratch for articulating anything anyway.

My only interest, from the minute you made that vacuous boast - was simply to show up the fact that it was exactly that - vacuous. Utterly empty.

As far as I am concerned, I have conclusively shown that already.
Maybe you don't understand a thing about psychology.

Your talk was empty dribble. . . . and that has been clearly demonstrated here.

The best you can do is to pretend to be holding back your statements - while you write epistles on distractions, lol.
Kid's play.
Period.

plaetton:
quote author=AllNaijaBlogger post=34625411]


It all boils down to accepting or rejecting the assumption that there is something bigger than the universe.....and that something is a being.


Again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Accepting or rejecting any assumptions. Nothing wrong with holding a worldview. After all, we are all individual and seperate worldviews.

The problem is about the superimposition of one worldview over another without a universal benchmark of testing and evaluation.

The issue is how we evolve a reliable, universal, predictable and consistent Method of evaluating and updating our worldviews.

We have evolved and do have such a system. It is the scientific Method. It has proven itself over the last few centuries.

Anything that is beyond the reach of the scientific Method, beyond mathematical proof or extrapolation can only be deemed as purely conceptual abstracts at best or just speculation at the least. This is where the idea, concept of god lies.

Its funny that both Anony1 and Deepsight have both used the words "concept and conceptual" in their descriptions of god, without even being cognizant of the implications of those words and how it contradicts their arguments and worldview.

If God is an abstract concept, then what exactly are we arguing over?

Where are abstract concepts formulated?

Your guess is as good as mine?

They are arguing against themselves without even knowing it.

You mean you have been busy writing irrelevant epistles without addressing that which you promised - even vowed to address?
Have you no sense of personal honour?

Just look at the many extensive posts you have out up today without even once addressing that which you were challenged to address: that which you in fact boasted about? ? ? ? ? ?

Chai.
Some people.

Kay17:
Mr Deepsight,

If you could remember that since nothing could not have brought forth the Universe, then the Universe must have come forth from this Something -- God. Doesn't that contradict the unchanging quality of God?

Thank you for your comments.

May I ask exactly how such a thing would contradict the unchanging quality of God?

Would such a thing for example change God's eternity, self-existence, transcendence? Not at all sir - you can see that that does not follow. Indeed it does not follow anymore than you breathing in and breathing out changes the quality or nature of your being.

In this regard, there is the idea of Yugas of the Divine - (just as an analogy to address your comment) - you can vizualize this in terms of the Hindu concept of Yugas -

Whereat, every cycle of existence may be akin to Divinity breathing outwards and thus bringing universes, epochs and times into existence - and breathing inwards, and thus collapsing the existence of the universe for a new cycle to begin.

Yuga (Devanāgari: युग) in Hindu philosophy is the name of an epoch or era within a four age cycle. According to Hindu cosmology, life in the universe is created and destroyed once every 4.1 to 8.2 billion years,[1][2] which is one full day and night for Brahma. The lifetime of Brahma himself believed to be 311 trillion and 40 billion years as per Hindu cosmology.[3] The cycles are said to repeat like the seasons, waxing and waning within a greater time-cycle of the creation and destruction of our universe. Like Summer, Spring, Winter and Autumn, each yuga involves stages or gradual changes which the earth and the consciousness of mankind goes through as a whole. A complete Yuga cycle from a high Golden Age, called the Satya Yuga to a Dark Age, Kali Yuga and back again is said to be caused by the solar system's motion around another star.[4]

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

I write this to you by way of analogy: it should be clear therefore that the coming into being or cessation of a universe - and cycles of universes even - certainly does not mean that the being or element eternally bringing this into being (for example - the expansion of a universe from the point of a singularity) and causing same to collapse (such as the collapse of a universe) - does not change in essence by reason of so doing.

Indeed, if anything, the very fact that such a cycle is possible shows exactly that that element causing same is unchanged - if it continues to cause such.

I hope you understand the analogy set forth.

Also, why is the Universe of a different even contradicting character from God. Why isn't the Universe transcendental as well.

Let us stick with the analogy above to answer this question: it would be the same way a single breath from lungs is not of the same nature as the lungs itself. It would be the same way that single breath does not transcend either itself or the being that exudes it.

To use another analogy to help - it would be the same way Light from the Sun is not necessarily the fullness of the body of the sun itself. And in this same way, even if Light rays may move or be emitted away from the sun, this does not mean that the sun has changed in essential nature or substance. This is a mere analogy.

However, aside from the two analogies above, the simple answer to your question is that the universe is not known to be something outside of itself or beyond itself, and we thus cannot call it transcendental. The idea that something beyond the universe caused the universe informs our reference to that cause as transcendental.

Now, let me say one more thing - although for the purposes of this discussion, it might be a step to far. But I will say it nonetheless: and maybe we will take it up some other day in the future when we have allowed one another to discuss and interact up to that level. And here it is: there is no reason to say that God created this universe directly.

However please note that that is a very remote discussion for another day. It has been discussed extensively on this board, and if you are interested, I could look for the discussion for you. Be warned though, that it is a discussion among Theists.

And you have found yet more time to write without pointing out the contradiction you were on about - or even addressing anything said.
More's the pity.

Still on about the toothfairy, lol. If that is the height of your philosophical speculation, I wish you well. Do enjoy your illiteracy.

Ride on.
Clearly: as I repeatedly said - you simply have nothing to say.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Therein lies the difference between the atheist and the theist. You see the universe as eternal while I see God as separate from the universe and eternal.

Why is God eternal?

Think about it. The universe had to come from somewhere. Something predates it. But to avoid going into an infinite regress of predating the universe, we have to come to a point where there is something that nothing predates. That point is God.

Thank you. Let me try to build on this a little, since the Atheists here will offer nothing sensible in return.

That above is fair enough logic which should be simple to see. However many may still have somewhat fair objections to it.

In simple terms what I prefer to say is that at all events -

~ Something exists

~ Something cannot come from nothing

~ For anything to exist therefore, something or the other always existed

~ Therefore something or the other must be self-existent

~ The choices would be between a self existent transcendent and a self existent universe

~ The universe does not have self existent properties/ In the past I have explained that self existent properties must of necessity include -

* Intangibility

* Immutability

* Eternal in the past

* Immanent properties of existence

~ The Universe is therefore not a self existent thing: indeed, by this test - no matter at all can be self existent

~ The logic thus presents us with an inescapable conclusion in favour of a self existent transcendent, intangible eternal element: which element is what God is so called.

Not the Tooth Fairy. And not Santa Claus - as some "hard teachers" helping us "push our intellects" here, would like to discuss - whilst accusing others of "Sunday School" level reasoning.

Now the 2nd premise above is something that a lot of atheists (and scientists - via quantum physics) have attempted to disprove - namely to show that indeed something may even pop out of absolute nothingness. Some have gone so far as to ascribe properties and quantities to nothingness, which is of course nonsense on a philosophical level of existentialist discourse, however they may pretend it to be otherwise in any other sense. All of these psuedo scientific attempts to rubbish the second premise above have squarely fallen flat and shown the discussants to be embarrassingly ignorant of their own sciences or even arguments.

There is nothing like nothingness anywhere in existence because nothingness refers to "no - thing" and as such cannot logically exist, much less be referred to as the source of anything beginning to exist.

The 5th and 6th premises above are also argued against but they stand firm. The 6th premise in particular is sometimes argued against in terms of the permanence of change, the multiverse theory, cyclical universes and the like. None of these may be wrong, but the persons who so discuss along that line always fail to grasp the simple reasoning behind the properties of a self existent thing which I listed following the 6th premise. I have discussed those properties at length on this forum. No self existent thing can be matter.

Anyhow, thank you for your thoughts above, and this is just to return to you a hint of where I believe the discussion should lie - - - and certainly not with tooth fairies.

IN PARTICULAR - the point on consciousness which the OP raised is a separate and most powerful point and you can then begin to slightly understand me when I say that Plaetton's kettle of grilled insects offered up as a meal in response to it is simply disgraceful and beyond disappointing.

Good morning.

johnydon22:
this deepsight is not even arguing or mustering any meaningful defence for the op, just attacking plaetton and trying to maneuver other people to his side.

This thread is seriously ruined, the guy steered the thread off from what it should be and pushed it into a word exchange back to back combat..

Its just a sandwich of ad hominems and unrelated words to the op. deepsight i think if you need an argument with plaetton (seems that you don't tho, just want to banter words) Just open a thread on the topic and invite him, we would all be delighted to seat and watch and sure enough call out anytime any of you tries using personal words.

from what i see here, its not an argument just some letting off irked feelings...

You are funny. I doubt you have read the whole of this thread.

You really expect me to go off and open a thread specially only to have this fellow shadow box and refuse to say anything whatsoever all over again?

Just to watch him make repeated vacuous boasts about how he is a hard teacher and forcing people to use their intellects - when the truth is that he has nothing to say?

This man knows that if he opens his mouth, he will simply embarrass himself. I shit you not when i say he is scared. Just watch and see.

Open a thread.....Only to have him make cheap excuses while all the time running away.?

You are funny. Really funny.

^^^ Lol. Meaningless.
I give up.

When you are ready to man up, i will address you.
Until then.

AllNaijaBlogger:


That's not necessary.

It the truth though.
It is the height of unschooled pedantic nonsense to have a philosophical discussion around comparing the essential conceptualization of that which is referred to as God - with the tooth fairy.

I will go further - that is plain st.upid. Infantile even.

The person has no education or brains and I will not countenance such a d.olt strutting about and attempting to tell others that they lack what he so evidently lacks - grey matter.

Nope, I will not stand for it.

plaetton:
Within this post lies a most profound fact that I ignored the first time I read.
This self evident fact exposes sooo much, contradicts and mocks every word and posts of the op as well as shaming the unthinking few who are cheerleading him to intellectual perdition.

In my usual generousity, I will allow the op to reread this post, and decide if he would like to erase everything written on this thread.

That in red above is exactly what our gentleman has developed cold feet about pointing out - preferring instead to make many divergent and irrelevant posts to distract attention from the question.

My challenge to him stands.
Whenever he is ready, we will surely see who exactly is speaking out of the ill lit aperture between his legs.

I doubt though, that he will ever have the nerve to address me on this.
Scaredy catty. . . .

Kay17:
What does cowardice have to do with esoteric religious beliefs?! The insults are unnecessary. If you can not stand your ground then leave the thread.

My friend, if you read the thread, you will see the dumbfounding cowardice (and hypocrisy) yourself.
And you will also see that it is no insult for me to call a spade a spade in stating the man to be a staggering little coward in this instance.
For that is plain and simply exactly what he is in this instance and I make no apologies for saying so.

ihedinobi2:
Lol. No doubt.

I'm not sure what hard questions you have asked though that have pushed my intellect that hard.

Honestly!

Human beings!

Hard questions indeed! Hard teacher indeed!
A man who cannot state what he claims is a contradiction. Some real hard teacher.

A man riveted with stark and glaring fear.
Some hard teacher indeed!

Well, the whole thread is there for anyone to read. . . . .
I just can't stop shaking my head at the pedantic emptiness of that which he imagines is "hard teaching" . . . . God and the Tooth Fairy, lol.

What an unschooled little boy.