₦airaland Forum

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. . .

^^^ Do you really expect me to bother with a man who, in such few posts, renders such scandalous illiteracy? A man who says that there is a part of the brain called "the self" and that madness is caused by losing a part of your brain.

Lol. Enjoy jaare. I will await better denouncers of my very simple - even simplistic - posers.

plaetton: Good poetry for a man that is not only a non-resident of our celestial neighborhood, but is also a self-confessed mad man. Lol.

Yes, madness does inspire good poetry.

But I see nothing new, no new insight, no new revelation: just the same old " the universe is so great that we must, as an urgent necessity, create a creator for it".

It just echoed in a much more elegant fashion, the earlier convoluted logic of Joshthefirst.

Cosmology according to Deepsight:

In the beginning was the word, and the word grew into big words, and the words became God, and the words were from Deepsight.

Lol.

Lol, especially @ madman. I still do not deny that. I am mad. There can be no doubt.

Anyhow, I have lots of thoughts to write - a true "summary of all arguments" as my title says. The OP is an intro.

Relax.

Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be critical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy.

© Max Ehrmann 1927





.... Xmas gift to y'all.

ooman: yeah. Madness does not immediately result into blindness for instance. You dont need to loose all of your brain to loose your "self".

Lol. I won't worry with you.

ooman: except if you loose a part of your brain, then you become mad, then you have lost your "self"

Losing a part of the brain is what makes people mad?

1. Does your body become incomplete when you lose a body part? Yes, it does.

2. Does your "self" become incomplete when you lose a body part?

^^^ Yes, for the blind.

ooman: no need for stories.

This is what lazy people say when they don't want to read and analyze.

What is a eye without a brain, what is a brain without a eye? Complement of both makes for a function.

A function for who?

For who to see?

The decisive part of the brain is the self,

Please don't be a dolt, this fine Sunday, there is no part of the brain called "the self"

the self is not complete without the eye and other organs.

O really? So your "self" is not the same "self". if you lose a body part? A finger, or an eye, for example? Do you become a different "self"?

They all work together to make a complete human. Simple

They work together to form a complete human body sir. You have not found your "self" in any part therein.

ooman: Do you need to be told that it takes a decisive mind to make up a "self"?

The brain has perception and experience, so material construct in specific configuration can and do have perception. What we dont have an evidence for is your "being that inhabits the body"

No, dear, the brain does not have perception of itself as a brain.

Address this point: Only a person can see. Not a brain. Not neurons or sensors. Only a person. Perhaps I elaborated it better here - >

Deep Sight: The bold in red is the saddest part: namely that the materialist atheist infers or states that such are nothing but the work and product of tiny pieces of matter, which, for their own unknown purposes and motivations, collectively work together in an intricate system to deliberately produce such. It's unthinkably and lamentably st.upid, that they cannot discern the clear evidence of a personal being existing therewith, and the aggregation of matter about it, which is called a body, being nothing but its material support system for life in a material world.

The eye.

The eye is more than enough food for thought - not its unfathomable complexity - which is quite another proof, no, not even that: rather the fact that it represents perception through sight - and this is only possible to a personal being. To see a thing, a feel a thing, to hear a thing, to smell a thing, to taste a thing: these faculties are only possible where there is a being that is seeing, a being, that is feeling, a being, that is tasting, etc. The physical apparatus by itself can only transmit and interpret signals - if there were no being to experience the interpreted signals, there would be no experience.

Which is why I refer thinkers to meditate on the corpse. To observe its as-built functionalities and ask themselves: WHAT were those functions serving?

They are only functions built for a being.

This is the simple, plain and evident truth that any child can see and discern; however, as the saying goes: a little learning, is often a terrible thing.

What can I say?

ooman: at least there is a glass and water to view, where is your god?

Where are you?

ooman: its simple, robots, etcs arent made of carbon molecules, neither do they have replicating and mutating dna.

And the area for "self" has been recently found. This is the the dorsal fronto-median cortex (dFMC), an area on the midline of the brain directly above the eyes.

http://phys.org/news106936688.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/health/self-control-brain/

O, no, please try again.

The link you posted identified an area responsible for self-control - it did not identify the self.

Here are the exact opening words from your link -

The area of the brain responsible for self-control—where the decision not to do something occurs after thinking about doing it—is separate from the area associated with taking action, scientists say in the August 22 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience

Read more at: http://phys.org/news106936688.html#jCp

Before you can talk of "controlling" something - the thing must exist, no?

So please, you have not identified the self, or located it.

ooman: its simple, robots, etcs arent made of carbon molecules, neither do they have replicating and mutating dna.

This does not address the question asked sir. In simple terms, the question asked is whether or not a material construct (evolved or created, regardless) can have perception and experience.

ooman: Sorry, i assumed you also believe your god was perfect. I did not know you believe in an imperfect god. My apologies.

I have not touched on the topic at all. Do not project. I have not even said I believe in an imperfect God.

Just don't take religious notions of God and project them on to me please.

I do not subscribe to any religion, thank you.

ooman: It is insane to claim a perfect being as the creator of an imperfect world.

Where in my post did you see the word "perfect"?

Please don't make assumptions or project ideas that I have not expressed unto me.

ooman: all you have up there are questions showing your confusion...

So you have no questions. Lol, please leave me and mine to my musings.

By the way, if there is a single falsity in anything I wrote, do feel free to point it out. But if there is not, can you not just smile at an idle old man and let him be.

I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

ooman: ok, where is the sum?

It is for the initiated to see.

Anyhow, there will be more.

ooman: It will be great if you can point out the insanity in atheism

It is insane to hold that mind arose from matter.

Or even to claim ignorance that mind arises from mind.

It is insane to deny design in living creatures.

It is insane to hold that the particles constitute the being, and not that the being utilizes the particles.

It is insane to deny cause.

It is insane to claim ignorance of the laws of motion and thermodynamics, and their relevance to the cosmological discussion on the existence of God.

It is insane to deploy religious absurdities as the basis for rejecting a philosophical and cosmological supposition.

It is insane to behold the world, and all that rests therein: and repeatedly say: there is no proof, not a shred of evidence, no proof at all . . .

plaetton: These talks of the improbability of this and improbability of that stems from a lack of real understanding of statistical analysis.

If you had any idea of probabilities and "statistical analysis" you would not be an atheist.

You would see the stark, dim witted f.oolishness therein.

The epileptic insanity, even.

For several weeks I have tried to start writing this. Each time I have started, I have become instantly disillusioned and abandoned it.

Disillusionment, arising from what I believe will be the futility of writing this. And yet, write it, I must.

And so why am I disillusioned? What is the futility I refer to.

I refer to the futility of having a man stare at white, and call it black. Poker faced. Grim serious. Not joking. And genuinely believing it, even. And a very intelligent man, to boot.

Walk with me.
-------------------------------------------------

Where did their story start. They never knew. They didn’t know where they came from. They didn’t know where they were going to. They heard stories from their mothers, legends from their fathers. They could see, they could hear, they could taste, the world about them, its bounties and its terrors, they could feel. But most wonderfully, they could think. And speak.

They surged about with passions in their hearts; passions of love, passions of hate, passions of greed, passions of world.

And passions of fear.

From a primal tug deep in their groins, they would clutch at one another, male and female, and clutching, a new one of their kind would splurge through their bodies, and come into their world.

They would stare at the limitless ceiling of their world: they called it the sky – and behold the thousands of lights.

And clutching and clutching and clutching, their number would grow.

And grow.

And grow.

And they would build nations and cultures and language. They would be societies, they would civilize. They would wage war, and explore. And find new lands. . . . and find their kind on new lands.

They would enslave them.

They would kill them.

They would make nations of them.

And in the abundance of their thought, and their science, one day they built a ship. And they took to the skies and flew towards the thousands of lights.

And they peeped outside their world.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they saw that their world was a glistening blue ball floating about in what seemed a void. It was floating around a large ball of fire, many times larger than their world. And there were a great many balls of fire about, and a great many worlds.

And no one could count the number of the worlds and the number of the fires.

They wondered.

Where the worlds all came from.

And where the great balls of fire came from.

The fires, that were, they could see, the thousands of lights in the sky of their world.

They wondered where they had come from.

And so a dispute arose in their midst: for some of their number said that the wonder of their existence was too great; they, and the worlds, and the great balls of fire, had come from a great power beyond all the worlds. But some of their number said nay; for they could not see such a power. . .

. . . .and they wondered and they wondered and they wondered.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ah, I see now why I was hesitant to write. For I awoke to write an argument. Alas, I have written a story.

I have written a dream.

That argument, maybe I will write, when my shadow visits this place again. . .

Good morning.

Yours ever,
D.S

[size=5pt]To be continued. . . [/size]

^^^ Does eternity exist?

Well @ Plaetton, I will just assume its a genuine misunderstanding from you. I think this is what you missed -

I said -

Deep Sight: You had better halt your slippery slope - your anti-God delirium is wiping out your reasoning powers - such that you completely missed the point.

Hint: the point is not in any evidence or even logical deduction. [size=16pt]Is it not[/size] possible to know of the existence of something without understanding its full nature? This very simple everyday fact is what you stated is a contradiction.

The bold.

I said - "Is it not possible. . . "

And not -

"It is not possible. . ."

Maybe that's the confusion.

plaetton: I have re-read and knocked myself several time in head trying to rejig my loose screws in a futile attempt to understand this statement.

You mean that to know that something exists, we must first know it's full nature?

Full nature of what, then?
How can we know the full nature of something whose existence we don't yet know?

My head is hurting.
I think one of these religious apologists said that thinking gives headache.
I think he is right.

Oh my lawd. You are more lost in your delirium than I thought. That is not what I said at all. I hope you read it again and feel embarrassed. I hope you then see what your obsessive desperation is doing to your brain.

You need to take a full step back, and start your life musings all over again.

plaetton: What available evidence?

Pls Keep logical deduction aside for now, because anyone can logically deduce anything they wish.
After all, magical thinking is an advanced form of logical deduction.

If we had evidence, there would have been no arguments.
For example, I have never met non-believers of gravity because there is no doubt about it's existence.

God is an idea. Period.
Primitive minds fashioned primitive gods.
A brilliant mind such as your fashions a much more refined god.

I am sure if you and I get together and call it a task, we can even fashion a much better god than you currently have.

God is a work in progress, just like our minds,

We have come a Lllllllong way , baby.
lol

You had better halt your slippery slope - your anti-God delirium is wiping out your reasoning powers - such that you completely missed the point.

Hint: the point is not in any evidence or even logical deduction. Is it not possible to know of the existence of something without understanding its full nature? This very simple everyday fact is what you stated is a contradiction.

^^^ Knowing, through available evidence, and logical deduction, that God exists, does not contradict NOT knowing the full scope of God's nature. The full scope of man's nature is not even known.

You guys often give the impression of being excited to sit back and pick holes (even where the holes you pick are flawed) rather than sit together and reason together in all seriousness. Well, I forgot you said there is no need to be serious on this forum. I see things differently.

noblefada: Simple, human sacrifices were an abomination to God, so God would not have accepted it and of course no priest would have performed the sacrifice.

[size=20pt]! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

CHECKMATE, REDEMPTION BY CHRIST'S SACRIFICE.[/size]

plaetton: Yeah Josh. Primitive men of all ages understand this, that is why they sacrificed their children to this invisible sky daddy of yours.

We are very thankful to them, aren't we?

Wait. . . don't you have a theory on why they did that. I seem to recall something like that on my Ancient Aliens thread?

wiegraf: ^^^

He asks a deep and profound question. Why not address it? He is making your point, no?


Note: do you really think your logic and whining do not qualify as juvenile? As mr troll points out elsewhere, basically all you do is special pleading (and I'll add variations of emotional appeals, but meh)

Genuinely, I do wonder why you feel the need to dress up nonsense with grammar when addressing non-sheeple. Exactly what do you hope to achieve?

You do realize that you are being lampooned because what you post is nonsense, and when it's pointed out to you, all we get is a broken record crying with big english etc etc, yes?

Lol. Keep posting the pictures.

plaetton: ^^^
C'mon Depardo, lol, look around this forum and tell me who is here to contemplate the deeper meanings of existence.

Is it the tithe tithe merchants, the trinitarians( buy one god and get two free) , the apocalyptics, the prophets, the hell returnees or the rapture-ready?

Stop kidding yourself. This is the religilous section, where important questions about demonic possessions, demonic text messages, the money-loving devourers, and angry gods tape front page.

No one here cares about your deeper existential questions.
That is too hard like calculus.
Besides, the bible has long settled that issue for homo religilous.

Hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!



This actually got me laughing out loud like some lunatic in my office!

Nice one!

^^^ Oh my Lawd. I really expected much better.

Quit hanging around Mr. Troll and LB. It's really telling on you.

Help yourself -

(4) you are trying to say that any attribute can be attributed to a mythical character (in which case you both avoid the fundamental question of existence and non-existence, as well as the fact that both "mythical" characters are well defined with specific "mythical" attributes. Just as surely as the "mythical Sango" is very well delineated from the "mythical Yemanja".)

Oh, and pay attention to the bold.

Santa, Sango, Zeus, Allah, Yahweh and Yemanja, regardless: the question in bold remains for eternity.

That question, is what is to be discussed, and not trivia such as the attributes of Santa.

BTW: Just a note: you will never convince any serious person that you are even remotely serious if you carry on with your tattle about meatballs, flying spaghetti monsters, and the like. Frankly, seriously, and with every respect: they are the most puerile, juvenile non-starters, and only communicate to your co-discussant that you are not ready for anything serious or worthwhile.

Like - seriously.

You are however, of course free to turn yourself into LB or Mr. Troll. A sad loss of a fine mind it would be, but stranger things have been known to happen.

GET SERIOUS.

aManFromMars: https://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4141/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4141-13912.jpg

Believe it or not, designed and created by a conscious and intelligent being. For a purpose. Think deeply. Reflect on that image and prove to me it just came from nothing.

Really, you should have noticed by now the sickening slide of the atheists on this forum into being posters of kindergarten pictures and images supposedly intended at mockery. Once upon a time on this board, that s.illy pastime was reserved for Olaadegbu. It's now been taken over by the atheists. Try not to be counted with such juvenile idiocy.

Mr Troll: can you point to any part of your body and say it is your mouth? Where exactly is your mouth? Is your lip your mouth? Your teeth? Your tongue? But togther they constitute your mouth, or is there a mouth that contains your teeth, tongue and lips?. Think on that.

let me educate this your arrogant ignorance a little... say a man is electrocuted to death. Among other things, the principal [size=20pt]cause of death[/size] would be from heart fibrillation and a sudden over heating of all the body fluids. It is a complex yet simple process that has absolutely nothig to do with a spirit exiting the body of the man. His internal organs simply fried up and he died. Same thing with other processes, you bleed too much, your heart does not receive enough blood to pump and an infarction ensues, your cells die of starvation and you die. No spirit man involve.

If you have evidence of a spirit man pls show, otherwise shut up and carry this your fake intuition bullshit to uneducated sheeple.

CHAI!

Ignorance, illiteracy and st.upidity spoken with confidence.

You see those last two words in your post? You are the ringmaster of those.

Edit: PS:

By the way: since you still don't get it I have highlighted the words in yours above for your attention. Your disgusting logical gaffe is repeated in it: you set about explaining causes of death. Lol. That was never the question, nor was that raised. I am really shocked that that could be your come-back. Really trying to explain causes of death? You are a true and well bred clown.

Really, I thought only Logicboy was capable of this kind of thing.

The sickening bit is the delusion of enlightenment or exposure you live under. You are as dim witted and as ignorant as the laziest area boy I ever came across.

CHAI!