₦airaland Forum

rationalmind: Same way it gave birth to hunger, love e.t.c which are all abstract concepts controlled by physical regions of the brain which is a by product of evolution.

Intuition maybe is also controlled by some physical aspects of the brain. I'm not into neuroscience but I know someone who is into it will be able to shed more light.

So, stop making unnecessary leaps

And, might I ask: are such unquantifiables such as Joy, Sorrow and Heart Break - also products of evolution?

Logicboy03: No....because it is illogical....we deny it because it is illogical



Logical Evidence-
Josh; I have a bat
Logicboy; prove it!
Josh; *produces a bat* here is the bat!



Illogical/spiritual evidence;
Josh; I have a bat
Logicboy; Prove it!
Josh; You cant prove that I dont have a bat!

What rather goes on here is this:

Theist: There is a Creator
Atheist: Prove it
Theist: Produces a human brain, with its hallmarks of design

Atheist: That is no evidence. Not a shred of evidence!

rationalmind: I base my morality on the golden rule. I don't to others what I wouldn't have them do to me.

And let us say that you are, for example, a masochist. You enjoy being whipped to within an inch of your life. Would this principle which you have mentioned make it morally apt to do same to others who think just like you.

To put it more lucidly. Let us say that you detest being disciplined. Your principle says that you would not do to others what you would not like them to do to you. In this instance therefore you would consider it morally wrong to discipline others who similarly detest discipline?

Logicboy03: If I am being sued for non-payment and I produce both a receipt and a bank letter stating that I paid fund into the claimants account- isnt that evidence?

These are physical, and hence, scientific testaments: which can also be subjected to scientific verification. Still, end of the day, the kind of evidence of God you seek.

And a pity indeed, that in spite of the abundance in every iota and inch of life and living creatures about you, you will stare it all in the face; you will stare at the grand and stupefying design even of your own ungrateful body: and, thumb in mouth, nappies soaked, still screech: "no evidence! not a shred of evidence!"

If God appeared to all of us and then went back to heaven, would that be evidence? Must it be described as "scientific"?

O, yes, to the extent that you will want a physical appearance, scientifically recorded and verifiable as real, and not some holographic hoax.

Your mind is just as invisible as God is invisible: you do not doubt the existence of your mind because of its works. The mind of God is manifest also in the works of God.

Logicboy03: The main reason for being an atheist is not science.
It is a simple logical decision- there is no evidence for God. Simple and short

Lol. As though by evidence you do not mean scientific evidence.

And please just shut your vacant mind down for a good rest this fine saturday rather than claim that you can show by philosophy that God does not exist. In fact don't ever dare mention the word philosophy in your life again, you hear me?

plaetton: The bolded is partially true, and we can discuss that further along the way.

And if that is the case then your question and assertion are dead on arrival as the intellect will only apprehend that which it has been conditioned to apprehend and as such can never be any useful "arbiter" of any reality human or otherwise.

But first, is the mind the intellectual center, or is the mind the intellect?

Mind is the core essence of being. When something is said to be a being, it is because it is a living thing with the properties of perception which enable it to apprehend its environment and its sense of self. That innate property is what mind is and it is the core faculty of being. The intellect is a component or subset of mind - or better put, it is merely one capacity or capability of mind - the capacity to reason. If as you said previously, mind has no objective truths of its own but only apprehends what it is conditioned to, then you cannot say that the intellect is the supreme arbiter of reality because it would only decipher what it is conditioned to decipher. Not reality and not even human reality. Simple.

Now I will also go further to say that if this intellect is the supreme arbiter of our reality as you say, there are many barbaric but strictly rational and efficient lines of reasoning that should find currency in the administration of human affairs. However this is not the case because there are other faculties of mind at play. One of them is conscience. Another is empathy. Yet another is passion. Yet others are instinct and intuition. These things are not intellectual.

And I would very much like to see you dismiss the existence of instinct and intuition. Start with babies and breast feeding. An evolutionary conundrum, by the way.

Well I honestly do not know how you can raise such a question haven previously declared that mind only sees that which it has been conditioned to see, and thus cannot be trusted to disclose objective truth.

^^^ He placed it in bold.

Here again - >

Kay 17: The idea that the human body is inhabited by some semblance of a spirit is deceptive.

As against:

Kay 17: Rather man is a collective with distinct layers of personalities, coloured perceptions, a bubbling subconscious lying beneath the surface

texanomaly: I'm curious. Name three such uncaused things.

Well I can give you two.

1. Infinite time (Eternity)

2. Infinite space ( Spatial infinity)

Mr Troll: Do you have evidencd for this 'spirit' man that inhabits the body?

Hey there! I asked you a simple question! Answer it.

rationalmind: Lol, I hope you realise your response might imply an eternal universe which had always existed.

Not at all: the expansion shows that it had a beginning and commenced from a point.

And let me add this one thing. I notice you are always quick to jump to the rescue of these religious folks when issues like this arise.

Its a pity you don't realise how dubious they are. When they contend that the universe indeed must have been caused by something, what they actually mean in maclatunji's case is, Allah that caused it also dictated the quran to mohammed through angel gabriel. And that same Allah(who caused the universe) will roast billions of people (including you and I) in hell for refusing to believe in what doesn't make sense to them.

It is exactly that notion of a cause we debunk. No one I know of is really beating his chest saying the universe has no cause. What we know is, no one for now knows what the cause is and as such, religionists in their appeal to ignorance should not assume they know.

Ok. But I am not defending religionists, only addressing the question of cause as I see logical.

Merry christmas!

thehomer: Then why did you say:

If you accept that somethingness is the default state, then why do you complain when I accept that it is?

Because we refer to different "somethings" - as I have explained above, there are logical grounds to hold that that default "something" could not be the universe. If those grounds hold true and consistent, as they do indeed, then we are ineluctably left with a default something which is not material, or of this universe.

When I ask you "why something instead of nothing" - it is because of the logical impossibility and inconsistency of the notion of material self-existent somethings.

Besides, friend, you might really want to take a very deep look into what you mean when you say that matter or energy of this universe just exists - absent cause.

thehomer: What do you mean by "eternal in the past"? Is it that this something was before time? If it was, why does it have to be eternal when it changed as time extended? I've not said anything about a default eternal state.

Really? THEN please tell me what a "default state" means, in terms of our discussions on same?

If it was not always the state (i.e: eternal in the past) then how is it to be said to be the "default state", hmmmm?

If it only became the state of things at a point, then it is hardly "default", no?

This speaks for itself. I think you need to do some thinking both on the substantive issues here, and the words you have deployed in the past - as well as their implications - because it is hair-raising-shocking that you have, all this while, not recognized the implication of "default state" with reference to eternity in the past. Very shocking and discouraging. It would mean we argue while passing ideas on very different wavelengths and it would therefore be no surprise that we never understand one another.

thehomer: No, the only option is somethingness.

That is my position as well. Nothing else can be countenanced.

Why should a self existent creator be an acceptable choice?

For the simple reason that the universe does not disclose itself as self existent:

1. It is mutable

2. It evidentially commenced from a point

As such, it is logical to infer that the universe is not self existent.

Self existence of a person I think is to be mocked. If you wish to say that this creator isn't a person, then I can start agreeing with you.

The creator would not be a person in the sense of being a human person.

plaetton: ^^^^
If there is a process that makes nothing into something, or turns non-existence into existence, then that process also must have created the supposed creator.

Ah, but the existence of any "process" already is something. It is not nothing. It would mean that something already exists.

So, no, you still cannot make such a statement.

thehomer: Why shouldn't this be seen as a mere assertion or just special pleading?

"Everything was created except this one special thing that I like to think wasn't created" simply isn't good enough.

plaetton: Yeah.

Everything was created , except the creator.

They just don't know how childish and ridiculous that sounds.

The choices are between a self existent creator and a self existent universe: either way, you cannot escape one thing or the other being self-existent. Thus, self existence, by itself, is not a concept to be mocked: whichever side wins the debate, one thing or the other must be self-existent. This is inescapable.

thehomer: You still don't get it. Why should nothing be the default state? I'm actually on better grounds with saying that something is the default state. Especially when you can't demonstrate nothingness.

I do not, and have never stated, that nothingness should be the default state. If anything I have always argued that nothingness by definition is non-existent, and as such no such thing as "nothingness" has ever existed anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

Somethingness, is the default state.

What I have always disputed, is the idea that that default somethingness, is matter, because matter is mutable. I think we have discussed this at length several times, and you never absorbed this simple point, and I see no reason to think that you would absorb it now.

However, it just occurs to me that perhaps you can reflect on this simple fact, and perhaps it will assist you in grasping the point - >

What is meant by "default" state in this context, and would it be eternal in the past, and if so, how could "default" be mutable? Is there not a contradiction in saying that a default eternal state, is also mutable?

rationalmind: @ Deep sight.

As a second part of my reply, even if I agree with you that for everything that exists, there is something self existent, it would still be wrong for anyone to presently claim any knowledge about the self-existent entity.

Yes indeed, I would agree with that, with the caveat that some basic logical deductions can nevertheless still be made. For starters, that a self-existent thing would be eternal. This would mean that it would be timeless and infinite. A further deduction would be that it would be immutable. These deductions can lead to certain fundamental conceptions that can be helpful.

aManFromMars: ^^^
At one point, something had to come from nothing, be it god or the universe.

Or something always existed.

It is illogical to state that something had to come from nothing. Nothingness does not exist, by very definition: it refers to "no thing." As such, nothing like nothingness exists, or has ever existed, or can ever exist. It is an inherent absurdity to suggest such. Thus what you are saying would be that something came from another thing, which did not exist. This is absurdity.

Either that or nothing really exists. It's all an illusion.

Even an illusion is not nothing. It is something.

rationalmind: No. Its not necessary. Virtual particles have been shown to exist without anything self existent causing them.

I see you saying, " the vacuum is not nothing, there are low pressure gases" as I've seen you say.

Even if we agree there are low pressure gases, and it can be sufficiently proven those low pressure gases are not in anyway responsible for the particles, then for all we presently know, it is safe to say they come from nothing.

Actually it is never safe to say that they come from nothing, because nothingness by definition means nothing - no-thing - and as such no such thing as nothingness exists at all. Nothingness is no thing - by definition, nothingness cannot exist.

You can therefore see the double absurdity of stating that something comes from "nothingness." You are therefore stating that "something comes from a thing that does not exist." I hope you can see the inherent absurdity of this statement.

It is this inherent absurdity that makes the virtual particles case such a lamentable non-starter. This is completely aside from its being so completely unscientific, because no such thing as "nothing" is ever observed anyway, as you already noted that I would say. It is impossible to observe anything (such as virtual particles), however defined, emerging in an environment (such as a quantum vacuum) containing other elements (such as gaseous pressure) and conclude that such a thing emerges from "nothing" - even where you cannot determine what it is emerging from. So long as there are other factors at play in that environment, you could never state that such a thing is emerging "from nothing."

Thus it still and always remains the case that:

- - - > Nothingness, by definition, does not exist

Therefore:

- - ->Somethingness always existed.

ooman: You deceive yourself by saying every atheist ran away from your not so thoughtful question.

And clearly, you, who ran straight into it, did not grasp it at all.

Following your so called logic, since you said for "anything" to exist, something else must self exist. For that self-existent thing to exist, another thing must always exist and that goes on forever according to your logic.

You have missed the question completely: and conflated it with that of an infinite regress. The question is not about that at all: that is indeed an altogether different question. I placed a warning there: I said - please think carefully before you answer the question. But your feet are obviously too quick on the gas.

So let's try again, shall we?

NOW STOP.

Here is the statement again:

- - - > "For anything at all to exist, something or the other must be self-existent."

In simple terms, what this statement means is that given that things exist, something or the other must be self-existent. This is derived from the following premises:

1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. Something exists (the universe)
3. It therefore comes from something

Now if we say that it does not come from anything, that would mean that it is self existent. Conversely, if we say that it comes from something, then we would be inferring something else unknown as existing.

Now take a moment and understand this carefully:

- - - -> Something exists

- - - -> Something cannot come from nothing

Therefore: something has always existed.

Because if nothing existed: then you would never have a something: since something cannot derive from nothing.

As such your choices would rest between a self-existent universe, or a self-existent element not of the universe.

The reason I have taken the trouble to mention this is because I see both of you sitting back and mocking the concept of self-existence up there. I want you to realize, that self-existence, as a concept, is a given. You may choose to debate whether it applies to God or gods of religions, but the reality still and will always remain, that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must have always existed - (and thus, be self-existent) because something could not proceed from nothing.

It is not safe to make conclusions when there is no evidence for anything. Concerning the origin of the universe, the best position is to be skeptical, not to rely on some dumb conclusions made by some ancient illiterate cattle herders and farmers

I am tired of telling you that scripture is not my creed.

rationalmind: I bet you he will come back to beg the question and tell you his intelligent source has always been. He is undesigned, uncaused, timeless and such nonsense.

I am going to ask you one question which every single atheist I have asked has run away from, refusing to utter a word on:

Do you recognize that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must be self-existent?

Please think carefully on this question before responding.

Thank you.

ooman: @bold - what is the meaning, purpose and order you speak of in a world where meaning and purpose to life is not inherent.
And there is nothing like order as we understand it in the quantum world, its an unpredictable world. Quantum explains the universe. So read some books ehn.

Your comment is completely out of context.

That which you quoted, does not touch on the revert to gave: nor does it make any statement on the meaning or source of the universe. It does not even state that meaning and purpose are inherent: it states that people would choose meaning and purpose in their lives, over the spectre of a "chance" life and "chance" universe. It does not even state either to be true or false.

And no, quantum does not explain jack, it, so far, further mystifies, rather than explain the universe.

Now, I have said my bit on strangeness. We must now go back to the arguments on atheism and theism. But before doing so I wish to make one very important clarification and caveat: this discussion is about atheism and theism: the philosophical and cosmological question of the existence of God as creator: I thus will not countenance any religiously guided arguments based on the ontology of this or that god of this or that tribe or ethnic group. The discussion will be about the existence of a CREATOR of the universe, and the logical questions that arise therefrom, period. Thus I do not expect anyone to ask me, for example, why Yahweh is a genocidal misogynist, why Allah approves of killing apostates, or why Zeus is not to be considered as God. Thank you.

Be back later. . . .

Deep Sight: FIRST ARGUMENTS (OPTIONS. . . )

- - - - > The worlds, the big balls of fire - - ->

1. Came from nothing. (ex nihilo) - - - OR ->

2. Always existed: were just there. - - - > OR ->

3. Came from something. - - - AND ->

4. That "Something" - - -> always existed - - - > was Just there.

This is the first step. These are the first arguments. Then we discuss many other steps.

I had thought, that people would not argue against the idea that the universe had a cause: but may argue what the cause is. However, I was mistaken. Some atheists actually contest even the idea that the universe had a cause. On this board, notably thehomer and jayriginal have done so. This is why the sum of all arguments must commence with baby steps.

Very very. . .

Baby, baby. . .

Right.

Following on from this. But before I do, I should make a brief comment on strangeness.

Most people live their lives within a "normalcy" that allows them to be completely oblivious of just how absolutely strange and odd this world, this existence of ours, is. I do not. Although it is a dysfunction of some sort, and troubles me a great deal, I live every day with an acute consciousness of the strangeness of life and of our existence: the strangeness of everything about us. Indeed, the strangeness of our very own lives.

For this is exactly what has happened, as far as we know:

In what appears a stagnant void, existing, for all observable purposes, eternally in the past, a sudden burst of matter and energy occurred. This sudden burst, as far as we know, took place about 14 billion years ago, in terms of our current measurement of time. From a single point of virtually infinite energy, the origin and nature of which is unknown, an expansion of matter and energy proceeded, the size and scale of which is absolutely unfathomable to the human mind. The size of the observable universe (not to speak of the universe, whole) is unbelievable and out of all proportion to that which the human mind can visually grasp or comprehend.

Any person who does not regard this (the sudden blossoming into existence of the universe from the point of a singularity) as a pretty strange thing to occur in a seeming void, will have to be pretty strange himself. But wait, that is only the beginning of the strangeness which I tried to convey in such light words in the intro contained in my OP.

It gets stranger. Within the same universe, there, from chemical interactions, at some point in time, supposedly, something quite special and different emerges. Something different from the dead matter about it - living organisms. These organisms grow and evolve over time. Along the way, plant life emerges, also, conscious, feeling, breathing creatures, animals. Ultimately, mankind come forth - self-conscious, thinking, feeling intelligent beings with a sense of past, present and future, and with such very strange tendencies as art, science, music, philosophy, and even cosmological philosophy, religion, as well as moral and societal codes and laws.

In this interaction, in their societies, they create galaxies of knowledge, of new learning, of ideas without limit. But, as with all other living things about them: notwithstanding the high extent of their minds, the loves and passions of their lives, their extensive pursuits: at some point - they die.

And what does this death mean. That every single man, woman and child walking on this earth, floating around the sun, within the larger universe - will lie motionless in death, and rot away. You, me, everyone.

From the first mystery of the big b.ang, what triggered it, what powered it, why it happened at all, to the mystery of first life, and then on to the mystery of self-conscious intelligent life, and on to the mystery of death, it is all a really, really odd thing that has happened, that is happening, and that continues to happen. The existence of the universe, the existence of life, and the existence of us.

Thus people seek meaning in their lives, for otherwise it is perplexing. The sheer futility of compulsory and unavoidable death, the enigma of it all, is enough to compel man to seek meaning in his life: however it is also sufficient to render man renegade, not caring one way or the other. For if all things end in death, why should man seek any ideal higher than to enjoy himself within this brief stay under the sun.

When the atheist thus preaches to the religionist, asking the religionist to forsake the coagulation of ideas which give him purpose and meaningfulness in his otherwise perplexing existence, the atheist should be ready to offer a purpose and a meaningfulness higher and better, in lieu of the purpose and meaning of the life of the religious.

The atheist would do well to understand that few people would choose the seeming perplexing meaninglessness and randomness of "chance" life, in a "chance" universe, over a meaning, a purpose and an order. Such meaning, purpose and order, the atheist should inculcate into his evangelism, before seeking to deconvert the theist.

An unenviable task, given the strangeness of all things about us, as described above. . . .

Mr Troll: False. Nobody knows...
False. Proven so.
speculation. No concrete evidence.
see 3 above.

Those were not assertions of mine, in case you didn't notice. They were various positions taken by various people, i specifically wrote "options". . . ?

thehomer: Careful now. The problem is that by "cause", you generally mean that someone maybe spoke the universe into existence or imagined it into existence. Would say a change of state from something to the universe that didn't need some mind directing things count as a cause to you?

Why is the idea of a transcendent mind so scary to you?

Anyway, you can ignore that. It's a rhetorical question.

Your position, which you have canvassed extensively on this board, is that the universe as it is "may be the default state" of existence, or "universe-like" objects. You were very happy to ignore the question as to why this is the "default state": to wit: why something, instead of nothing, as the default state. It is instructive that you are willing to countenance this magical proposition, whilst regarding similar magic propounded by religion as delusional and illogical.

texanomaly: Nice one…



Even better one…



You are old? How old is old? Interesting…
I have to wonder, because I’ve noticed there are NLers who think 30 is old. So I’m just wondering.

Lovely musings btw

I really didn't mean old as per age. I am in my Mid-thirties. But I meant "old" as per tiresome, cranky, nostalgic, been around, eccentric, etc.

Thanks very much.

^ You consider your self -(the person that you are) to be the sum of the parts of your body?

aManFromMars: Would you agree that lower animals also have a 'being'?

Yes.

Redlyn: Something must have been uncaused. I stop at the universe because it's as far as I can see. beyond that it's just wild speculation based on the evidence presented to me in this world. I'll leave it that.

I think the first arguments premise should be the singularity or something not big balls of fire. We already know the earth or the sun wasn't always there.

Yes sure. However even the existence of the singularity is still a theory... a postulation which should be reasoned through. I will be back, thanks.

What if God did not create us?

What if other beings else where created us as a biological experiment. Lab rats. What if.