₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
Yes indeed, sir.
Every soul must inevitably come to the recognition of the unity, interconnectedness and oneness of all things in the universe.
Still, no god required.

There is only one electron in the universe.
By yet-to-be understood quantum mechanical processes, that one electron just happens to be everywhere at once.

Lol.

Yet, that one electron is God.

^^^ Lol. Ancient discussion.

I doubt the idea of an omnipotent resorting to subterfuge, and worse - I doubt the dignity of it.
But this no longer matters as my views overall have changed somewhat.

Kay17:
By stressing on human experience, I wanted to remind you how frail it is and its limits. You ought to be conscious of its limits, sweeping generalizations such as "Everything that begins must have a Cause" which you often make, ought to be given their necessary qualifications. The manner in which you held up 'commonly observable physical laws' as an irrefutable authority whereas it is human understanding of that physical phenomenon we call physical laws.

I hope that you sha have some non-human experience that you will rely on to validate the true nature of reality.
Good luck with that.

^^^ No matter. You haven't said anything new (and probably neither have i). As I said its a waste of time.

I would like to find time to share some of my new perspectives on the meaning life.
Please leave Mallam Madam Kalam,
Salaam.

Kay17:
A better description for these commonly observed laws of physics you mentioned, is human experience. Hence the Kalam cosmological argument works within the constraints of human experience.

And as human beings, will we ever experience something outside human experience?

Is there anything that can be argued, propounded or contended, by human beings which is outside human experience of reality?

Can you see the futility of that which you are advancing?

jayriginal:
We are yet to know about so many things in the Universe and for anyone who knows anything about quantum physics, it is downright laughable to apply personal observations to quantum phenomena. We are component parts of the Universe and as such, we cannot apply our limited observations to the whole. Its really simple.

Where this is true, it still forms no particular ground for disputing commonly observed laws of physics.

One should only do so where one has positive evidence that those laws are controverted by clear observations at quantum or other extraenous levels.

It begs the question to simply asseert, as you do, that since quantum laws or happenings are a mystery, then all known laws are laughable and should be condemned in discourses such as this - and cannot and should not be applied to understanding reality and existence as a whole.

If this reasoning is followed, as I have pointed out to you, nothing can ever be discussed in existential terms for all eternity - because every stage of knowledge will always remain "as far as we know." It is absurd to rebut the known with the unknown. The unknown, being unknown, cannot serve to rebut anything whatever. You rebut the known with the known.

Whether you recognize it or not, this is frankly the summary of what you say and this is the position you are taking and I hope you can see what a futilist position it is: a position which renders it impossible to have any sensible discussion on any logical matter. A position which renders it even absurd to make a statement such as that you will have breakfast at 8 a.m.

It is a position which is meaningless and has no substance or reason whatever.

It is not a position that any serious discussant can take seriously even for a moment. It simply shows that you are not inclined to be a serious discussant.

I have for instance asked my friend to tell me the cause of virtual particles and he couldn't except to insist that they did not occur in nothing (which was not the question I asked).

It is impossible and illogical to aver that something is causeless if it emerges within a given non-void environment.

Indeed, those who advance the issue of virtual particles recognize this even though you do not! - - - > Because the exact reason that they advance the issue of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is to attempt to show that something may emerge from nothing! They thus know very well that the minute a non-void environment is the context, the argument would not fly. This is the very reason and also the only reason that a quantum vacuum is the field discussed.

It is beyond sad that this very elementary and obvious fact - which the makers of the argument know very well - misses you.

Fallacy of composition.

This occurs when you take your observation of parts of a thing and apply it to the entire thing.

Unless you think that a day will come when earth-man will have a birds eye view of the entire universe - and all possible universes and realities in existence in totality - then it must irrevocably be your position that no known principle or law should ever be used to attempt to understand the nature of existence.

Futile, no?

-------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT POST-SCRIPT

Now, having said the foregoing, let me quickly note that it all matters not: for as I said before, you and I have worn ourselves bedraggled on this subject and it appears that we will never see eye to eye on it. I also doubt that there is much that is new that we can advance to one another to solicit our respective positions further. It is thus a useless waste of time and at this time in my life I am no longer particularly interested in these meaningless logical or illogical debates that lead no one anywhere and add no value of any kind no any person other than being a hollow vaunt of empty intellect for all discussants.

I therefore say to you that going forward I will be more interested in sharing with you the simple truths about life (that is - our lives as human beings) as I have come to see them by the grace of God (and receiving likewise your perspectives on simple truths of human life) and whether or not these simple truths appear ridiculous to you or not, I am sure that it will be more worthwhile than all these meaningless debates.

For you are a spiritual being of deep and profound quality and that is what I would prefer to discuss with you and everyone else.

Let the bandage fall: and begin to see the wonder that you are and the wonder that existence is.

Stay blessed.

plaetton:
Events are simply tangets or inflection points of culminating processes, infinitely occuring natural process.

Events don't begin. Events are just one point in a continuing string of processes that go on and on to infinity.

wow. Just wow. I can't get over this. Events don't begin?

wow.

wow.

wow.

Please can you define the word "event"?

Jesus.
Even an inflection in a chain begins or it would not be an inflection at all.

This is so elementary and self evident that if you dispute it, it's best to just leave the matter.

Jesus.

I thought I had heard and seen the worst possible logic that anti-creation logic could spout. Apparently not.

Events don't begin.

Wow.

Smashing.

^^^ Troublesome man, e ku ojo meta. Bawo ni?

---- Even if the universe did not begin (which anyhow, it did - regardless the semantics) - the event of the Big Bang began.
That event is still in occurrence as the universe continues to expand.

---- Now even if the universe did not begin - and even if we put aside the universe entirely - - ->
-> Events necessarily - by nature - begin.

Or they would not be events.

DProDG:
Could you give examples of things that "began to exist"?

jayriginal:
I wont be baited into arguing. Your post up there did not address anything I wrote. The earlier you realise that you cannot prove the existence of God logically, the better for you.
EDIT:
Oh and Im also interested in your example of things that "began" to exist.

Events.

Simple.

jayriginal:
Ah dont worry about that. You see, this is not the Cosmological Argument, it is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As to your concern, "God" is said to be uncaused. Note the careful wording "whatever begins to exist". The unmoved mover. Lol.

Special pleading anyone?

How can anything begin without a trigger for it to so begin?

Do you imagine it more logical, sensible and scientific, to support the view or argument that things pop into existence uncaused, untriggered by anything at all. Just magically, yes?

Is this not the worst form of magical thinking which you and your ilk here so vociferously condemn the religions for?

Do the laws of motion and the laws of causality support this?
Do you recall that your refutations of these laws was only to suggest that they may not apply at a cosmic level which we have no access to and cannot determine? So on what basis really do you refute these simple propositions of logic and so vociferously condemn them?

If you are agnostic, is it not more sensible for you to quietly say that we do not know much about the totality of existence and leave it at that, rather than continuously refute everyday obvious logic based on that which - according to you - we do not know and cannot even know?

Is it not far and beyond more magical and fantastical to argue that it is conceivable for anything to begin or commence without a cause or trigger? Does it not run contrary to all that is known and observed and even logically inferable?

Anyhow, you and I have been down this path before and I suppose there is nothing that we can say to one another on the subject. You are free to regard the idea that things that begin require a cause as fallacy - just as I am free to know that you are the one being fantastical when you insinuate that anything may begin untriggered.

Not just fantasitical, but more incredulous and superstitious than the worst religionist out there.

The kalam is a salad of assorted fallacies.

You, and your ilk, are clearly subscribers to voodoo.

millionaireman:
And a president Buhari is most likely to say Yes to US Military African Command to be based in or nearest Nigeria. That may pave way for northern Nigeria Oligarchic/foreigners total colonization of Nigeria.

I don't know what Buhari's stance is on it.
I was only pointing out what factors could drive international interest.

It neednt be just oil, as Jaybee seemed to suggest, in expressing his doubts.

ololo12:
I'll answer that. A stable and economically progressive Nigeria is a threat to US interest in Africa. Remember, how Nigeria quelled the Liberian war without the assistance of Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam saw that as a threat to her domineering influence on the African continent, coupled with the fact. Nigeria blatantly refused Africom base on her soil. Put the pieces of the puzzle together and you'll get the picture of things playing out now. Uncle Sam wants to see Nigeria disintegrated period!

Thanks - I just mentioned Africomm to him before seeing this. Perhaps Jaybee doesn't understand international politics. Sub Regional powers such as Nigeria are always a threat to the hegemony of a concerned alien power like the US. It would always be sensible policy on their part to water down our soft and hard power. The outright refusal to sell arms to Nigeria on human rights grounds speaks a lot to any one who understands these things.

jaybee3:
Ask yourself this question, what's in it for them, Oil?

In International Politics, there is always incentive for powers such as the U.S to neutralize states which represent substantial international influence in any given sub-region, if such states are capable of taking positions contrary to the political objectives of the concerned power.

An example would be Nigeria's handling of the issue of the proposed U.S Africa Command.

There is thus always an incentive for the concerned power to ensure that it has a suitable government in place with respect to its political and diplomatic interests.

The issue of the Africa Command is one example. I believe there are many.

plaetton:
1. Seeing is visual perception.

Very well, let us start with this although all you have done is to say something like: "Seeing is seeing" simply you have used different words. nevertheless in so doing you have used the cardinal word I wanted to elicit: perception.

What does it take to perceive something and do you think that non living matter, if given sufficient time in random states, can (1) become living and more topical to my thrust (2) begin to perceive.

Further on, do you agree that perception requires a mind at work?

2. No. but order, symmetry, harmonious blend of form and function express beauty and perfection in any universe where form and function co-exists.

I hope you know that this has nothing whatever to do with any possible or conceivable refutation of the Kalam.

The most central plank of the Kalam is a commencement - something "beginning" and the logical inference that a "beginning" of necessity requires a trigger. namely that things do not just "begin" absent a trigger - as such would violate all laws of motion, causality and logic conceivable. Hence the logically sound statement that - "whatever begins to exist requires a cause."

Only things that have no beginning can be said to require no cause, as they are existent by default.

I have seen evidently mentally disturbed persons on this forum (and even one who fancies himself a scientist right here on this thread) bizarrely assert that this logical statement is not true - and given that such is the most illogical and unscientific position possible, I am hoping that you do not fall into same category?

odeotito:
The Igbo must consciously set out to put the Yoruba (their hosts in Lagos) at ease by correcting that impression

Nigeria is the host of all Nigerians.

Babacele:
What makes a mind fine is the degree of the wholesome ideals to which it subscribes and gives.
Using the Christianity evolution ,for example, Moses gave the Ten commandments and said God gave it to him . But Christ collapsed all the laws into just one with two prongs with love as the key to unlocking this law : namely the love of God and the love of our neighbour as ourselves.

For example, when the adulterous woman was caught ,John 8:1-11, the scribes and the Pharisees wanted to stone her to death according to the law of Moses. The man with whom she had committed d act wasn't even mentioned as was the culture- gender inequality. Christ Jesus knew Moses gave them such laws because it fits into their level of evolution( because of the hardiness of their hearts). Rather he tactically explained the original law and how sins come about , exposing the hypocrisy of everyone present as if they in their lives and hearts ain't worse off than the poor woman. Eventually none was pure enough to cast the stone. Love took over and the woman was given another opportunity to live anew while keeping sin at bay. That is a fine mind at work and that is the essence of AMORC teachings that has made the organisation timeless and most benefiting to mankind.

Fair comments. However the reason I directed that question to that poster is because of his stance on moral subjectivity/ objectivity.

plaetton:
The idea of a first mover makes no logical sense.

Why?

First relative to what?

This universe.
Remember that the immediate proximate cause of the universe needn't be God as presented in terms of eternity.

A first mover would have to have been moved prior to being the first mover. Not so?

Yes, if that first mover is not the eternal God, no if it is.

Remember that the term first mover is being used in relation to this universe: which should suffice for this discussion at this time.

What may be sought to be shown is a creative agent of this universe, which may or may not be the Eternal God - BUT at all events suffices for the purpose of the Kalam argument.

For someone who waxes eloquent about infinity, how then can you dream up a first mover?

In relation to this universe, such an idea can be considered.

However kindly note that when we speak of the Eternal or Infinite God, this in no way suggests that such an agent cannot be at the root of a finite creation.

Beings living within that finite creation however, will have to limit their understanding to its time-space frame. There is no contradiction in this, if you can see clearly the simple point.

The religious concept of god positions him as the embodiment of perfection.

Why must we discuss the religious concept of God?

The topic is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Is it a religious argument or a philosophical one?

A less than perfect god would put god as part and parcel of an evolving universe, and clearly outside the domain of a first mover or creator.

A less than perfect god can be conceived of which is a causative agent standing in a chain: there would be no need to state that such a god ceases to be a causative creative agent simply because it stands in a causative chain. It would only mean that such a god is not necessarily the Eternal Godhead itself. For the purpose of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, there is no need to invoke and question the existence of the Eternal God Head. A causative creative agent suffices for that argument alone.

Please answer my questions above as they are very important:
1. What is seeing?

2. Assuming for once - and just for the purpose of a question - that such a first mover exists, must such a first mover be either perfect or moral according to human understanding?

plaetton:
You are the one who brought out the issue of designed human eye. Did you not?
Why are you now running away from it?

I remind you again, most occular diseases are genetic. This means that they would have had to been woven in the design. Not so?

If your so-called intricately designed human eye shows serious flaws, it would imply one of two possiblities.
1. The designs were highly flawed, and therefore the designer is a bad designer.
Or
2. The imperfections are the result of the trial and error mechanisms that would be expected from the ever dynamic processes of an evolving organ.

Incidentally, there are similar kinks in every aspect of nature, even stars and galaxies show anomalies that highlight their evolving natures.

What is seeing?
And why is evolution incompatible with the concept of a first mover?

And - assuming for once - and just for the purpose of a question - that such a first mover exists, must such a first mover be either perfect or moral according to human understanding?

plaetton:
No sir,
I was going to get back to you on that, but it seemed to slipped my mind due to other distractions.
I will address it later.

When?

Although frankly I can't see how you can possibly refute what is in effect a wholesale concession of previously argued points. When you say that "morals and ethics are the standard measure for judging the quality of a man's mind," you make it abundantly clear that there is indeed a standard measure and no standard measure can possibly be spoken of if all morality is subjective as you and several other misguided gentlemen vociferously contended here last year.

And Btw, there is a dearth of intellectually stimulating threads on this forum.
We need to share, discuss and debate vast fields of knowledge and ideas.

Truly, I agree.
I must mention though, that glaring hypocrisy and insincerity - not to speak of outright hostility - from otherwise respected minds here is however a significant turn off.

Other than that, the last few months have been a whirlwind for me - far too busy and full of activity. Happily, it has been a richly profitable time. I feel there will be more space now for us to discuss subjects of interest again.

Like I always lament, religion cloggs too much space in the minds of our compatroits.

It does.

By the way, I spoke recently at a well attended public event where several important Muslim and Christian Leaders in Nigeria were present and I advanced forcefully my anti-religious position. I would like to encourage the e-atheist warriors here to do the same.

ayusco85:
are u igbos thinking of dragging abuja too? well goodluck with that.

#Zionists

You see, this post of yours zeroes in and actually shows the problem here:
You just made an assumption: you assumed me Igbo.

Well, I am not Igbo, and if you would like to see the point I am trying to drive, see my last few posts above.
Cheers.

Omololu007:
dis is africa,,wot u are askin for can only happen in countries lik USA,australia,canada...can a 5th generation black man born in moscow and hav spent all his lif in moscow,b d president of russia?

And which of these countries would you like the Nigerian paradigm to be modeled after?

MrPresident1:
Does Abuja not belong to the Gbagyis?

I have told you that it will be very misguided to claim that the Federal Capital City of Nigeria is the exclusive property of any tribe or ethnic group.

Secondly, I'd advise you to cogitate on the word "belong" and what sense you are using that word in.
Does it indicate ownership, for instance?

Because the question of ownership is certainly something that can be validly contested on legal grounds.

That would leave you with perhaps some less binding form of cultural "ownership" or ethnic presence if you like. And in that regard the Federal Capital City today is certainly not a cultural reflection of the tribe you refer to.

MrPresident1:
You are raising emotional sentiments here. The fact that you were born and bred in Lagos invariably makes you a Lagosian, OK agreed.

But I ask you again, Does Abuja not belong to the Gbagyis?

Oh no - there is nothing emotional about simple and cast-in-iron facts such as Abuja being the legal capital of Nigeria. There were various legal processes and instruments to give effect to that and it is very misguided to say that the Federal Capital City today is the exclusive property of one tribe.

MrPresident1:
Does Abuja not belong to the Gwaris?

Do you really mean this?
Lol. Well. What can I say.

When next you wish to visit Abuja, kindly visit the Gwari Embassy and procure a Visa from the Gwaris first.
If you wish to buy property there, be sure to seek the permission of the Gwaris also.

zwar:
Obama might be the President of the United States, but we all know those he won't dare f**k around with and they are based in the same United States...The issue of Lagos is akin...never create a situation to challenge the original owners of the land..otherwise hmmmm....

The United States is a nation of Immigrants, and while we are at it, since you talk about getting history right, you might want to ask yourself what has become of the real "original" owners of the land that is the United States today. . . . . ?

MrPresident1:
I wanted to see how he would answer his question.

Please see my last post to Omololu above.

zwar:
Present day Abuja was created on barren land taken away from the Gwaris..However Lagos is different, the Igbos migrated here and
were accepted into the community by the locals..FACTS can never be altered or changed...Learn your history dude.......
Oba lo nile.......
Obama might be the President of the United States, but we all know those he won't dare f**k around with and they are based in the same United States...The issue of Lagos is akin...never create a situation to challenge the original owners of the land..otherwise hmmmm....

Please see my post above to Omololu.

Omololu007:
lagos is wot it is now because of d likes of tinubu,fashola....d only place dat wia develop by d federal govt is ikoyi,vi and marina..d rest of d achievement we are seein in lagos is been achive by d likes of fashola.d military govt stopped spendin oil money in lagos afta abj was dclared d federal capital territory

I am not disputing this.
I am only attempting to advance to you the idea that on account of its peculiar history as a former capital and its status as the nerve-centre of commercial and intellectual energies from all over Nigeria for over a century - it would be a tad wrong to attempt to make any citizen of Nigeria feel like some second-class citizen within Lagos.

This is especially true for those of us who were born here in Lagos and have lived here in Lagos all our lives and nowhere else - reaching back three to four generations even.

It is sad that in my own country, and notwithstanding the fact that I am a fourth-generation non-Yoruba Lagosian, any person would still attempt to allege that I am not quite Lagosian enough.

A Nigerian can naturalize in the UK or USA and seek elective offices there - and we have even had Mayors and MPs in those places - and this makes it unacceptable that right here in Nigeria, we scream oursevles hoarse about Indigenes and Settlers.

Omololu007:
is calabar an efik land?....

Fair point, but you would surely agree that Calabar was never substantive capital of Nigeria for any properly appreciable period of time in order to become the melting pot of the collective commercial and intellectual energies of an entire nation - which Lagos is.

do u know d federal territory of lagos,is diffrent from lagos statr? Ikorodu,lekki,badagry,ojodu,maryland,lagos island etc wia all part of d western region

I am aware of this, but this fact does not negate the significant impact that the status of capital had on the entirely of the expanded Lagos area.
Or does it?

Omololu007:
does onitsha blong to d ibos

Onitsha has neither the status of a current capital of Nigeria - (which Abuja has) or the status of a former capital of Nigeria (which Lagos was for about eighty years - the best part of a Century - as well as being the economic nerve centre and melting pot of the Nation's collective commercial energies).

That is the point sought to be made by my question, and I think you ought to meditate carefully on it.

By the way, just to help you along - I am not Igbo.

@ Plaetton ^^^

. . . . . case closed on moral subjectivity, i guess.

"a standard measure" indeed.

ayusco85:
Lagos belongs to the Yoruba's, like it or not.

Does Abuja belong to the Gwaris?