₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: Epic Fail by Deep Sight!



Separation of church and state is between government and religion.

It doesnt matter if it is a constitutional monarchy or not.

Stop dodging. Give a specific answer. This is a yes or no question:

I repeat the question:

So would you say it would be symptomatic of good separation of church and state if the Sultan of Sokoto was also a ceremonial Head of State of Nigeria?

Plus his pictures on our Naira, his palaces funded by tax, and his work consisting of diplomatic representations for Nigeria all over the world? If he has to make national speeches as Head of State, open parliament, and if the President had to give him a weekly briefing on affairs of state? And in all this let's say he remains (as he is) the leader of Muslims and Islam in Nigeria? Would that be good separation of Church and State? ? ? ? ?

Yes or no.

Logicboy03: Monarchy is not a theocracy!



Wow, another debunking recieved by Deep Sight!



#logic boss

Dull. The Sultan of Sokoto, like the British Mornach, was a RULER of a space historically - in other words he historically had mornachical authourity over the Sokoto area. This made him a proper administrative ruler as well. Now, again, just like the British ruler, his role today is traditional and ceremonial only. And just like the British Mornarch, he is the leader of Islamic establishments in the Nigerian Space.

I did not in any way suggest theocracy. I asked you if you would call a similar situation as obtains in Britain, good separation of church and state.

Here is the scenario again -

So would you say it would be symtomatic of good separation of church and state if the Sultan of Sokoto was also a ceremonial Head of State of Nigeria?

Plus his pictures on our Naira, his palaces funded by tax, and his work consisting of diplomatic representations for Nigeria all over the world? If he has to make national speeches as Head of State, open parliament, and if the President had to give him a weekly briefing on affairs of state? And in all this let's say he remains (as he is) the leader of Muslims and Islam in Nigeria? Would that be good separation of Church and State? ? ? ? ?

The foregoing obtains in Britain. Note that I said nothing of religious laws being used to govern the state: that is what theocracy is, you dolt.

The description in red is EXACTLY what obtains in Britain.

Would that be good separation of church and state, since you want us to mimic them?

SIMPLE QUESTION - ANSWER!

Logicboy03: 7) The Queen's position is ceremonial. She doesnt control the govt. Get that through your thick skull!

So would you say it would be symtomatic of good separation of church and state if the Sultan of Sokoto was also a ceremonial Head of State of Nigeria?

Plus his pictures on our Naira, his palaces funded by tax, and his work consisting of diplomatic representations for Nigeria all over the world? If he has to make national speeches as Head of State, open parliament, and if the President had to gice him a weekly briefing on affairs of state? And in all this let's say he remains (as he is) the leader of Muslims and Islam in Nigeria? Would that be good separation of Church and State? ? ? ? ?

Olodo.

Logicboy03: 1) Nairaland is Nigerian and I am too. I am talking to Nigerians not Americans. You bringing America is already a straw man

2) Worse than being a straw man, you have no argument on America because it is quite Secular. Even atheist are now suing to get "god" off their money and court houses. Seperation of church and state works there.


3) The Queens position is ceremonial and that is a FACT! You can blab all you want but this renders your "not secular because of christian queen leader" useless.


4) 84% of Japanese say that they have no religion. Get that through your thick skull!

5) Is Obama really a christian or a politician claiming to be a christian? At best, he is a cultural christian. (Gay rights president)

6) They are communist countries and not atheist countries. They killed because religion wasnt part of their communist agenda. They didnt kill because of atheism. Mao did not destroy Buddhists that worked for the party's goals.


7) The Queen's position is ceremonial. She doesnt control the govt. Get that through your thick skull!

You know, I really should not bother with you because they say that one gravitates towards the intellectual level of people one often discusses with.

I don't want to become d.aft.

Logicboy03: #


Yawn.

Yawn right back bro. You mix up issues and lack elementary comprehension skills. It seems to me that this must be evidence that you possibly dropped out of school at some point. Nothing else could explain your absolute inability to understand or follow the simplest of discussions.

What did the British drop christianity for? Witchcraft or secularism?

As I explained, the issue in your OP is not secularism. In fact, your use of the word strongly suggests you do not know the meaning of the word "secular".

The issue in your OP is a simple question of aping one's colonial master, simple.

While secularism was not the main focus of my OP. You forced it out of me when you were blabbing about American and it being christian. Am I now banned from mentioning secularism? The way you people argue sometimes eh...................

Exactly what you should answer. It is a pertinent question because the same Britain you mentioned is the colonial master for a very advanced religiously inclined country like America. Why are you not offering similar advise to Americans - who by the way, have insignia such as "in God we Trust" on their currency and emblems of state?

Boy, you have no point.

The Queens position in government is only ceremonial. Please, go and educate yourself before you bring flawed arguments.

Don't be silly: it is ceremonial, but is still hugely relevant. Ceremonial positions are not irrelevant. The Monarch's position as Head of State gives him or her huge leverage in state affairs. One example is the area of diplomacy, where royals do massive work and regularly act as foreign representation for the British State. Another fact is that tax payers money has massively funded their Castles, Lifestyle, Travels, Jewels, etc.Finally, you must know that the Prime Minister has a weekly briefing with the Monarch. Don't be naive, this alone gives the ceremonial Monarch massive leverage in terms of advising the government.

Please go and read how much problems Margaret Thatcher had because of the fact that she had different views on South African Apartheid than the Monarch did.

So a person in such a position, funded by the state, living on the state, Head of State, doing diplomatic work for the state, and whose image appears on the currency, and is by right, Head of the Church of England - you dare say that such a person has no relevance to the state - in terms of the discussion on separation of church and state? What then is separation of church and state all about?

In fact, I put it to you that the Nigerian Government's sponsorship of pilgrims is far less interaction between Church and State than all this Brit stuff is.

Obviously, its not well implemented in England!

You shouldnt have brought on Japan. You have just earned yourself a super debunking.


[size=18pt]Japan is highly irreligous! They only fill in Shintoism or Bhuddism for cultural purposes. 64% of Japanese do not believe in God! about 84% claim no religion in Japan.
[/size]

Believing in one God, or God at all, is not the only benchmark for saying that something is a religion. If this were the case then we could well argue that Buddhism is not a religion.

Shinto is a religion. Fact.

America remains a secular state.

So does Nigeria. In fact, we do not have things like "in God we trust" on our currency or emblems of state. On top of that, Part Two of our National Anthem which starts with "O God of creation" has been phased out. Again, unlike the Brits, neither the Head of any Church or the Cheif Imam has ANY role in government - ceremonial or not.

The elite of America are atheists- Hollywood, college proffessors, Scientists etc. Religion is for the bulk of common people.

Yeah, common people, such as Obama and virtually every President in history?

Don't be a laugh.

Lastly, anti-religion is not the same as atheism. Communist regimes were anti-religious. Communism itself is a state religion!

Don't be such a toad. YOU are anti religious because the issue in your thread is basically questioning why one should be religious. Communist Countries actively worked against religion and religious expression This debunks your idea that atheism necessarily leads to a better society, or that better societies are necessarily atheist.

Logicboy03: Are you a man or a woman?

Are you a stalker?

Sorry, I cant do the thread now, I am quite busy. But please answe my question

You are welcome anytime.

Logicboy03: I knew you would bash me.


Reread the OP and you will see that I was actually addressing Nigerians in the UK.

Furthermore, America is quite secular despite the huge amount of christians. They have a well enshrined separation of church and state- which atheists group use to bash fundamentalist christians when they try to go overboard.


We also forget the other side of separation of church and state- freedom of and from religion. Should anyone discriminate against me because of religion, there are govt-al organisations that can assist me in building my case in defense.


Compare that to Nigeria

1. The question of the secular state is altogether different and distinct from the issue in your OP. The issue in your OP is the question as to whether one should drop religion in the circumstance where the nation that brought you the religion has done so.

2. Nigeria is indeed a secular state and it says so specifically in the Nigerian Constitution. Although separation of church and state needs to be improved upon: particularly irksome is the involvement of the government in sponsoring pilgrimages. This still has no bearing on your OP.

3. Where you speak about separation of church and state, it is most curious that you mention Britain - whose Head of State remains till today the Global Head of a Religious Organization by right. You cannot wave this off because this actually affects key things like ascension to the throne. As you will know, being a divorcee will be a huge problem for anyone who a royal wishes to marry: and in the past this issue has even caused a sitting King to abdicate the throne. More recently, such has hobbled the status of the wife of the Heir to the Throne, Prince Charles.

Now, tell me, how separated can you say Church and State are in such a Country? And this is the country you wish us to mimic in terms of separation of Church and State? Alright, in that case, I recommend a constitutional amendment - The President of Nigeria should also by right be the Supreme Head of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, as well as be the Cheif Imam in Nigeria by right.

4. There are various reasons why a community may or may not be religious. Very advanced nations such as the United States and Japan remain very religious - re: the former is heavily christian and the latter is Shinto.

5. Where you argue that Scandinavian nations - which are very well governed, are largely atheist, this is of no use to foreign nations because this varies: it is true for instance that communist nations which vociferously promoted atheism and tried to stamp out religions have also been among the most barbarous regimes in history.

Logicboy03: I hope you know that this topic made front page?


There are many topics that use strategy A "religion is bad" but they get nowhere.


I used Britian to make a logical point that an advanced society dropped their religion and we carry religion there without asking why.

It touches something deep in Nigerians when we compare our country to the UK. An indirect route of asking why developed countries dropped religion.



Effective and logical

But you could say the same about America, could you not?

Should they not also be looking over their shoulder's and saying they ought to drop religion since their colonial masters - the Brits, have done so, no?

Logicboy03: I really hate long arguments on the big bang and the universe.

Anyway, Deepsight, I want to challenge your deist belief on a new thread.

I am always happy to discuss that: so please go right ahead.

I'm tired of you walking about with your head held up high like some world class intellectual!

Lol: A GOLDFISH CANNOT HIDE ITS HEAD. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LIVE WITH IT!

plaetton: I perfectly understand the statements. One does not need to think very far to understand.
For example a year in jupiter is 263 or so years.
It simply means that a complete rotation around the sun takes 263yrs for jupiter as opposed to 364 days for the earth.

Your first statement implies that equivalent of a few minutes of our conscious time yielded 386,000yrs of real time after the big bang.
Remember, time is a duration of consciousness.

Your second statement is even clearer. It means that it took the earth only 6hrs to to achieve a complete rotation of its axis.

I'm not sure you've got the posers that disturb me yet. I am pressed for time now. Please look more closely at the term "experience of duration" in the OP: will be back tmro. I added a sentence. Thanks.

plaetton: I really did not get you.
Time is relative to motion. Time and motion are inseperable.
Time is a property of motion.

If the scientific notion of time is wrong, which notion of time is right?
If we can conceive of a perfect vacuum where there is no motion, no movement of mass, then time, would, in theory , not exist.

It is not possible to conceive of time pre or outside of the universe.

Address yourself to the two statements I quoted.

Gents,

I watched a documentary a few days ago which described the development of the early universe in terms of current scientific thinking.

Once the documentary started, I took a pen and paper and began to note certain points which I intend to re discuss with you both in terms of our arguments regarding the nature of time. Well right now, i dont have much time [ ], and so I will just drop two of the points I noted: I am hoping you will see the issues right away.

In terms of current scientific thinking on the nature of time, I noted these two statements.

1. "Within a few minutes after the big bang, 380, 000 years passed"

And

2. "After formation, the earth was spinning so fast that each day only consisted of 6 hours. With the stabilization of the moon, the earth slowed down and each day eventually consisted of 24 hours."

Do you see how each of these statements proves that the current scientific notion of time is wrong and contradictory, or do I need to explain further. Please note that with regard to the second statement, my interest lies not with the fact that less speed leads to greater duration for the completion of one cycle of rotation, but in the experience of duration: i.e: would the experience of duration change.

Discuss.

Thanks.

thehomer: Well the Cosmological argument is flawed for that and other reasons. One yardstick to use is that if actual cosmologists aren't convinced by it, maybe just maybe you should be hesitant to adopt it so wholeheartedly.

What? I should bury my brain simply to eat hook line and sinker the views of others?

Aside: you have not pointed out how the first premise of the CA is flawed: do things begin without causes or triggers?

Oya, say so na.

Who says infinite space and infinite time actually exist?

I am happy you have asked this question because tonite I AM OPENING a thread for you and Martian to answer some questions on TIME.

As to your question, your comrade in arms, Idehn, took a similar position, and when I opened a thread to rebutt it, he went AWOL.

Please here are my rebuttals - answer them if you will.

https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time

Ihedinobi: There is no worldview that lacks an element or entity that exhibits self-sufficiency.

That's correct. Its just that people differ on what is self existent. I have said often that its either one beleives in a self existent cause of the universe or one believes that the universe itself is self existent. That latter is evidentially false.

seunajia: In essence, Muslims are allowed to do all things with christians including marry them, except worshipping/praying with them.

Allahu-alam.

Are muslim women permitted to marry christian men? Thank you.

@ OP, Please can you educate me on the position of Islam on Freedom of Religion. Specifically, is it permitted to leave Islam - and what is the prescribed punishment for a person that leaves Islam.

Thank you.

plaetton: Ha ha . This is funny.
The word BEGIN implies a cause. That does not need to be a cosmological argument. And I do not ever recall you using the word "Begin" in your basic cosmological argument. rather, I have seen you use the word "Exists". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not only have I always said begin, but I have corrected made this same clarification to several people many times ever since Prizm reminded me about three years ago in a discussion. Besides, I did not formulate the cosmological argument: and that is what it says. It says "begin".

And what are those things which we can INFER to exist, but without a beginning?

Infinite Space

Infinite Time

Just two examples.

plaetton: "The idea of a permanent and eternal something'?
which arose from a .............something else or a nothing?

Do permanent eternal things arise? They are. They exist.

Outside of religious lore, what does eternal really mean?

The infinite continuum into which events are interpolated.

The christians claim that jesus, himself a god, is the only beggoten son of god, another god,who is also co-god with the holy spirit, etc, in their voodoo arithmetic.
The point is that if god jesus is begotten, then why can't god almighty , also be begotten by some other unknown almightier almighty, and so on?

I leave that to the voodoo christians.

thehomer: I do no such thing. What I would show is that the concept of "nothing" has changed due to the advances of modern science.

This is a falsity. The concept of nothingness has never changed anywhere except in the minds of deluded goons such as Krauss.

Nothingness means no thing. Period.

We relatively only figured that out recently.

This is a point in favour of that which I am saying: if we have figured out that there is no perfect vacuum anywhere, then Krauss's contradictory discourse collapses with that.

And there we disagree unless you're willing to extend the idea of a God being a physical process or mechanism.

Even where, for the sake of argument, I was willing to say that God is physical (which I do not believe), no one responded to the points I set out and the thread I commenced.

https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time

Here you go. I don't think that we're even qualified to discuss it. Or do you understand the advanced calculations necessary to show it?

Here are the exact words on your wiki page:

The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.[1][2][3] The amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity

Now tell me exactly why the energy in the form of matter should be considered cancelled out by the energy in the form of gravity so as to arrive at zero - the absolute zero relevant to this discussion - namely - nothing.

Tell me, just tell me.

It's a false hypothesis, son.

Now, comming to your second link, answer is no, I do not understand such calculations: nor do I need to understand them once they are based on a wrong premise in relation to my argument. Remember that this discussion is about the possibility of something coming from nothing, and as such the only proper defnition of zero in relation to this discussion is total nothingness: which does not exist. As such, the definition of zero being used under the discourse of Stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor is NOT this absolute zero which is relevant to this discussion. This is why it is hopelessly misguided to refer to such as showing that "the universe may literaily pop up from nothingness" as Krauss does. I hope you understand this clearly.

For emphasis, I quote again from your second wiki-link:

In the theory of general relativity, a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor, such as the Landau–Lifshitz pseudotensor, is an extension of the non-gravitational stress–energy tensor which incorporates the energy-momentum of gravity. It allows the energy-momentum of a system of gravitating matter to be defined. In particular it allows the total of matter plus the gravitating energy-momentum to form a conserved current within the framework of general relativity, so that the total energy-momentum crossing the hypersurface (3-dimensional boundary) of any compact space-time hypervolume (4-dimensional submanifold) vanishes.

Please note the bold words above: this is not an equation that results in nothingness. It is an equation specific to the calculation of positive energy from matter and negative energy from gravity: this does not result in nothingness: and as such is NOT the zero relevant to this discussion: which would be absolute nothingness.

It is also critical that I point out to you that even with the Zero Universe Hypothesis, it is said that the cancelation equation results not necessarily in zero, but perhaps in negligible energy. Again from your first link -

A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.

I point this out just to show that even with the hypothetical model, an absolute zero is not definitively presumed!

Nevertheless this still has no impact on my argument: for as I mentioned above, the zero referred to, and relevant for this discussion, is absolute nothingness. Dear friend, absolute nothingness does no feature anywhere in any of these equations.

Finally I should point out to you that the supposed cancellation of material positive energy and gravitational negative energy is a net calculation. In other words you are speaking of a mathematical net zero, and not the zero which is relevant to this discussion - absolute zero.

I leave you with the words of Patrick R. Briney, PHD, in his debate on this matter regarding the existence of God from the First Law of Thermodynamics -

"Energy exists, and the known laws governing the natural universe show us that it is impossible for it to have originated naturally. The idea of a net-zero-energy universe is a highly speculative attempt to explain how energy exists without violating the FLT. But two things suggest this idea is wrong: 1) the conservation of nothing is nothing, and 2) supposed vacuum experiments are not absolute voids and therefore do not show something coming from nothing."

I was pleased to note that his point no (2) above is a point I have repeatedly made against you guys on this same issue.

plaetton: First,are you saying that you have never written that whatever exists must have a beginning?

I know you are addressing Anony's statement, but i'd just like to clarify, in case needed, that the bold is NOT what the cosmological arguments states. It states that whatever BEGINS to exist, must have a cause.

As to the bold, it is not true: there are many things which we can infer exist, but which do not have a beginning.

It is very much like you to dodge or ignore my question and then jump into my definition of energy.

That energy can neither be created nor destroyed is a scientific model that all have come to accept. It is not my definition. It is the standard definition.
Are you conceding that god is energy?
Deepsight had come fulll circle to to agree as much.
Have you?

Please do not misrepresent me. God is indeed primordial energy, but is also much more.

jayriginal: I'd put it slightly differently.

I'd ask if it is possible for the non physical to affect the physical.

thehomer: Yes. I think your presentation would better agree with what I'm trying to say.

Are thoughts physical things?

Do they affect physical things?

This alone answers your question.

thehomer: Actually you're failing to consider the fact that the idea of nothing that you're using is actually quite recent. i.e until the advent of our modern understanding of quantum physics and to most lay people, nothing actually comprised of undetected particles.

Please stop being ridiculous. Its really shocking the illogicalities and even outright falsities that you people are willing to spew forth simply in a bid to deny the existence of God.

The idea of nothingness has been the same from the dawn of time. How you can shamelessly attempt to claim that until the advent of our modern understanding of quantum physics and to most lay people, nothing actually comprised of undetected particles - is completely beqond me.

"Nothingness" has never "comprised" anything whatsoever: the word refers to what it indicates: i.e: no thing. Simple.

Only extreme dishonestly can push you to claim otherwise.

So we have this universe, theists say God was there before it while non-theists range from we don't know to postulating mindless mechanisms.

One problem with the theists idea is to explain how something physical comes from something non-physical.

We are able to infer things even where a full understanding of their mechanisms may be beyond us. A full understanding of the human brain does not exist, and yet we can infer many things about it from observation and reason. We can infer that the frontal lobe originates thought, even when we cannot tell exactly by what mechanisms or exactly how. Just as a rough example. If I were to try another example, I would say that from observation we can infer that there was a big b@ng, even when none of us ever observed it. Nor do we know how or why it happened. But reason can lead us to infer that it happened. The point I am trying to make is that the fact that we do not see or understand certain things does not mean that some basic logical inferences cannot be made.

As such, we can logically infer that the physical arose from the non physical on account of these premises:

1. The premise of the big b@ng - i.e: that there was a beginning

2. The premise that a beginning requires a cause

3. The premise that anything that begins cannot be said to be eternal in the past

4. The premise that matter is therefore not eternal in the past

5. The premise that matter is therefore caused

6. The premise that nothing finite can be its own cause: thus matter cannot be caused by matter

7. The logical conclusive inference is that matter must be caused by something that is not matter: i.e: immaterial.

Goshen360: [size=20pt]ONLY FROSBEL AND GOSHEN PLEASE.[/size]

No: I insist on imposing myself on this thread.

Please tell me why Jesus called himself a servant and messenger of God.

Let us start there.

thehomer: The question becomes what do we mean by nothing? According to theists, the presence of God is something, the presence of the universe in some form is something and nothingness cannot exist. This makes the statement of something from nothing, pointless.

Good, and as such you concede that Krauss was speaking gibberish.

He means in the usual conception of nothing e.g a vacuum.

You know very well that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere: and as such, a vacuum cannot be used in place of "nothingness" when we are having a discussion of something arising ex nihilo.

If nothingness cannot exist, then why should positing a God be a good idea?

Because it shows that a permanent somethingness rather exists: this is what is referred to as God.

You need to look into what he says when he talks about the total energy of the universe being zero because it looks as if you don't understand what he's saying there.

I have looked at it and it IS quackery of the highest order: the greatest psuedo science ever celebrated in the world.

If you think otherwise, please educate me on exactly why the total energy of the universe is zero: and let's discuss it!

Kindly remember, as you do so: what zero refers to: nothingness - - - > especially because he is proceeding from a tangent which seeks to show something from nothing: and as such you cannot argue that it refers to a mathematical point only: as such would not be nothing.

On a side note, why prostrate to tin gods? Revering them doesn't do them any favours. I'd rather mock them when I encounter them online.

Well, just to be open, by tin gods, I am referring to M Nwankwo, Justcool, Purist, MyJoe, Pastor AIO, Prizm, and their ilk.

I just fondly deployed the term "tin" because its not as if I worship them as gods o.

I do not agree with many of their views, but one must necessarily get serious when they speak: for they often speak intense sense: even where one disagrees.

As such, the general absence of these folk on the board, as you will notice, has reduced me gradually to a vulgar, low, logic-boy-yabbing anarchist.

thehomer: Then has it occurred to you that maybe just maybe you're both using different definitions of nothing?

Of course we are: but the point remains that in terms of the theological question of "something from nothing" there is ONLY one correct definition of nothing: NO THING. It is fraudulent, and even obtuse, to refer to energy particles as nothingness - and then use this to say that something which emerges from such EXISTENT PARTICLES proves that somethingness may emerge from nothingness.

In fact, it is illiterate.

If nothingness never existed, then why is God needed for there to be something?

No one said that "God was needed" for there to be something. We rather assert that God IS THAT permanent primordial something.

Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can’t even measure them. Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. God just isn’t necessary.

And here, for the UMPTEENTH time, is the quote from your Krauss and co, which SHOWS that contrary to what you are saying, he was in fact seeking to show that God is not necessary and something may emerge from nothing - (in spite of the fact that there is no nothing!).

I particularly underline the portion underlined for you to see that he actually asserts that something may come from nothing. He the asserts that the total energy of everything is zero. He is an illiterate bozo: don't buy the hype!

Now, tell me, what were you saying about how brilliant and celebrated he is? Do you now see why I cannot respect such nonsense.

For God's sake, dolts such as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ARE also celebrated!

Now secondly, as final and major proof that I am right about what he was saying, his entire argument was centred around the id.iotic proposition that the total energy of the universe is zero. How about that? Do you buy that as well?[b][/b]

MacDaddy01: Theists do not suscribe to something from nothing but that is their argument against atheists.

And a good argument it is too: for it discloses an important fact in their favour: namely that something permanent and eternal necessarily exists.

Unfortunately, their gods are said to come from nothing.

I am tired of teaching you: NO theist says this. Theists speak of a permanent something that is eternal and has always existed. Please go and read up the fundamental distinctions between necessary and contingent elements: not to sound offensive, but you are sounding very ignorant of these precepts.

Krauss is saying that since you guys call space "nothing", then something can come from nothing. Simples

Theists do not call space nothing. If anything, they generally refer to space as part of the creation of God. As such, Krauss, [IF this was his intention,] is still woefully wrong on that excuse.

Might I add that he in fact set out to PROVE that something may emerge from NOTHING as a way to debunk the existence of God. That is exactly what he did. I will show you the quote in my next post.

The reason why this fails is the simple fact that the "nothing" he starts out from, as we have all agreed, is NOT nothing - it is something.

As such, you must agree with me that Krauss goofed.

Period.

The truth is that we have no example of "nothing". You can only describe nothing in a way you can describe a 7feet midget.

Nothing is "no thing"...absence of anything.

A 7ft midget is a midget that is 7 feet.

Or a square cube. The same thing. Point remains that as I said, just like a square cube, or a 7 ft midget, nothingness does not exist. You cannot ask me for examples of what I have already said DOES NOT exist, can you?

You are just repeating a literal meaning of something that has no basis in relaity.

Exactly: and since it does not exist and has no basis in reality, then Krauss cannot and should not speak of something from nothing!

BTW, even 2 people have openly said that you have taken a dislike towards me.

Not at all: I actually amuse myself with your congenital st.upidity.

Did I do something wrong? Some religionists here hate my swag n guts

I have no doubt that anyone who is bothered about your "swag" must be about 12 years old.

I flag this thread for note again on account of the very simple questions someone raised here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1066840/why-does-life-exist....why-does#12454636

tevinsolt: Why does life exist....why does anything exists?
Why does life exist?

Life exists to combat and destroy itself. Eventually everything will die, it's like a cycle that is pointless and useless. A dead end, life is another pointless creation.

why was mother Theresa good when she could have been Hitler

why judge cannibals, war mongers since everything is headed for doom

why question/judge women who abort their babies, in short why anything?

Everything is pointless, meaningless, worthless because it all goes to extinction!

And in this. . . . rest the fact that there is obvious purpose. . . . . otherwise, you would indeed be right to say that there is no point in any morals whatsoever. Why the heck should I not murder and plunder, if all will end in a meaningless blackhole some millions of years out, anyway?

MacDaddy01: Yes, he is saying that it (space) is something made up of particles. However, since most theists shout "something" from "nothing, he was using your assertions to explain how that can be.

No, theists do not subscribe to the idea of something from nothing: they rather have always subscribed to the idea of an eternal and permanent something.

Additionally, if he accedes that "empty" space is something, then what he saying about something from nothing? CAN you now see why I say its a non starter?

When you and theists claim that something can not come from nothing, you forget that there is no example of "nothing" that we know of. ou know nothing about "nothing" yet you make claims about it.

This is because nothingness by definition is NO THING: i.e: it does not exist: as such this is where your Krauss goofs when he attempts to discuss something from nothing: there is nothing like nothingness in the first place - and it is worse that he does this by attempting to propose the evidentially false notion that the total energy in the universe is zero. He shoots himself in the foot by his description of "empty" space already - i.e: it is not empty.

BTW Deepsight, what have I done to you that you have been attacking me so heavily these past few months? Serioulsy!

Haba this one na lie o: my approach to everyone is generally the same, save some tin gods who I revere and prostrate for.

MacDaddy01: Yawn. The only thing I admit to is mistyping. I should have written "the view that empty space is "nothing"."


Is it clear now?

Well even if that's your take, it does nothing for your hero, Krauss: because if he is CORRECTING the view that empty space is nothing, then his correction is that it is in fact something.

And this completely destroys any reference he can then make about something from nothing!

And mind you, your exact words were that the scientists have the proof for their assertions in this regard!

Hope clear now ? ? ?

MacDaddy01: "If you"




You win the Dumbazz award

You don't get it do you? THAT was the basis of your reference to Krauss and praise of Krauss, no?

Can I ask you WHAT he refers to as nothing, when he speaks about something from nothing?

Be concise please.

Now secondly, please note your other statement. I will highlight words so you appreciate the import of what you wrote -

Now, on that quote; he was saying that something could come out of nothing. He was CORRECTING the view that empty space is not "nothing". If you refer to empty space as nothing then, something can come out of nothing.

Can you look at the blue bold and tell me what "He was correcting the view that empty space is not "nothing". means?

Please kindly note the bold word "not" in the context of your sentence and refer to what view he is "correcting".

Your sentence simply accedes that whereas empty space is not nothing, Krauss is "correcting" that view, and saying that its nothing.

Finally, you made your take obvious by stating that the scientists have "proof of quantum physics" on their side in this assertion.

As such, you cannot now duck: its obvious you have endorsed this position, not only by appealing to authority, but also stating explicitly that scientists have proof for their statements in this regard.

Care to make sense out of all this confusion you have made?