₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: You are one to talk of ad hominems. Thats your your stock in trade.

What a hypocrite.

You turn around and accuse others of your specialty ?

You've insulted me severally and I refused to reply. The minute I try to be gentle with you, you scream murder.

You're not thick skinned, you have no skin.

Jeez !

Okay Osuofia. Are you ready to settle down and address the issues?

I don't mind laying them on the table succintly for you.

Martian: if the penticostals and the other special people you have around you knew anything worth knowing, they would have told you that your arguments are based on the bolded.

This is another assumption, imagination, argument from ignorance, and is based on emotions.

You could not answer the questions, and I predicted that You could not and would not. I could offer you them directly again, but the result would be the same. You simply cannot ansswer them. Period.

jayriginal: No I dont stalk, and no I dont have issues. I dont seek approval either

What else?

Bringing the victim card out on the sly are we ?

Lol, just giving as good as I get. Don't cry.

You see, you lot have proved something cardinal here: namely that you have no point to make on the substantive discussion. Ad hominems all the way, and it is usual. I threw out direct posers for your buddy martian. Rather than answer them head-on, he is worried about ancient aliens or how "exposed" I am. Abeg. Just assume I am a village man. Answer my questions. No aliens will help you answer them.

And I comfortably predicted that he neither could nor would address those questions.

So. . . . . hey!

Martian: Lol, Pentecostals are special.

You know very well your comment followed on Jay's and as such formed a whole: which is what you intended. I am notoriously thick skinned and do not mind a good ribbing. It's fun. Just direct it at me and not at people who do not know.

That's not an insult, it's a fact. And you are not exposed enough and that's why you hold your special ideas. That not an insult either, ancient aliens proved that.

Lmao

This is an Assumption, Argument from Ignorance, Imagination, and based on emotions.

jayriginal: You do realize that I made the case that YOU have an inferiority complex.

You seek approval. That much is clear.

Ah, breathe.

Hmmmm? Breathe.

I am not the source of your issues ok?

Stop obsessing on a faceless person on a faceless forum.

You don't stalk, do you. I hope not.

mkmyers45: Can i get a free reading?

Well its involuntary. I have no control over what I may dream about. And it may be useless to you anyways.

jayriginal: Yet you call someone else a liar ?

The nerve !!

I explained my position, dont blame me for your lack of comprehension. I never asked anyone to stop thinking. I simply said things should be placed in their own perspective. Fact is fact, opinion is not !

I've tried to treat you like a kid on this forum but it seems I'm doing you no favours.

You are actually quite bereft of intellectual foundation, which is why you bring up the most idiotic issues in their most undiluted form. You seem to think native intelligence has an answer to everything.

Later you will pull out your victim card.

Joker !


Oh and original thought ?

What a laugh !!!

Point to one that is yours.

All you can do is call names. Thats your specialty.

Baby.

Hope the c/u/m is out now.

Ah, breathe.

jayriginal: (examples being your oneness of infinity,

There is nothing strange, special or unusually absurd about the idea that God is ONE and INFINITE.

This has been the perception of most of mankind throughout the ages up till this day.

ancient aliens,

There is nothing unsual in seeing ancient inscriptions as highly suggestive of extra terrestial origins.

In normal archaelogy, if a piece of paper is found with someone's name on it, it is taken as evidence. It beats me that people seek to apply double standards with highly suggestive ancient art works that depict and strongly suggest such things.

se x in public places and alters

I am an artist. You won't get that one.

and dreaming your future into existence) then only "god" knows what you want people to think.

This happens every day. Still happened even this week. Please leave my dreams alone. If you want prophecy, i will dream and give you your future ok? But if you don't believe, then leave me to my delusions.

Stop obsessing. All of the above just appears as what it is: a desperate attempt to cobble together what you think is irrational in my views or past in some sort of mis guided ad hominem. If it is to make proper arguments or answer questions, you run away. If it is to cheer-lead insulting Deep Sight, you arise with your desperate inferiority complex. Give it up mate. I ain't your ex girlfriend, am I?

Martian: It's not an insult. It's an observation based on your constant bloviating and you've mentioned how you "teach" people stuff. lmao If they accept the bullsh*t you spew, they must special.

Third lie.

You're on a roll. Carry on.

You must have a PHD in the art and science of shameless lying.

Frankly I think this just shows you are horribly out of your depth, or suffering from a bad case of inferiority. Don't take it out on me.

I wrote it already - here is my final position on you, Mr. Jayriginal.

Deep Sight: As shown above, it is open and fair reason and logic. If you have a different understanding, please show it to me for consideration, not so? It helps nothing to repeatedly advance as your only position the fact that you believe no one can or should have a position. I hope you realize that this "as far as we know" game which you play, or "according to your understanding" - is a game that can be applied to insist that we should all shut up and never advance any positions because whatever we may construe will simply be only "as far as we know" and "according to our understanding" and thus will amount to arguing from ignorance.

THIS attitude renders every discusssion meaningless. I will suggest that if that is all you have to bring to the table, then there is no point in your coming to the table. Really. Think on it.

You know, the thing about you - and I mean this in good faith - is that you are seldom, if ever, to be seen tackling the meat of any matter. I don't know if it is a tactic or just a part of your "we don't know anything and should all shut up" attitude. I just wearies me because you are always happy to snack on side matters, petty distractions and most often even outrightly refuse to engage issues. You dont need to give examples, you say. You dont rely on science, you say. What then is the purpose having a discussion with you. Seriously, I mean this in good faith. How can you help teach me knew things with such an approach. Where is the added value?

It would be nice to see you focus more on the meat of discussions and actually put a foot forward, instead of hanging back where its dark and safe and you cant be said to have said anything, as you claim.

And this is an excellent example of my point about you above: shall we all pack our bags up, eschew discussions and cease to postulate our ideas on existence and the universe, since as you say, knowledge is not absolute, and it is at all events only our "limited view" always in operation, and as such all discussions are assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions, no?

What's the point making any point?

You have obviously taken that position and that's why you admitted that you do not put your foot forward on anything in discourses. That may be okay for you, but frankly does not bring anything to the table for anyone else. You are, in effect, without realizing it, asking us to stop thinking.

What's the point?

You bring nothing to the table. Scoot off.

jayriginal: Na you know !



Let our baby philosopher be.
He cant escape dogmatism, lets teach him critical thinking instead.

I taya oh.



Need I say more ?

Here let me repeat for effect.



When I meet people like Deep Sight, I often make the observation that they dont seem to have intelligent friends.

Brush up on the basics dude. You cant be a philosopher if you cant argue, dont understand simple logic and let your emotions run riot.

Sorry.

Clear off: I have said everything I have to say on you already. I will re post it in case you missed it. You are worthless on the forum, because, as you admit, you bring absolutely nothing to teh table. So actually reading from you is worthless for everyone.

Martian: it's not about what you really think about whoever Parsifal is. It's the fact that you think the guy is an oracle considering the things he writes,s I'm not surprised that you find the notions like spacetime being a product of the universe absurd. afterall, does are the things you're liable to agree with.

You just are not man enough to stand up and admit you told a bare faced lie.

Martian: Like I said before, it must be the pentecostals and the likes that he is surrounded by.

And then tomorrow you will claim you have not made snide insults at my family: people you do not know. Please direct your insults to me: that is only fair.

Martian: lmao, the fact that you consider parsifal something worth discussing is my point! Things like that make sense to you while spacetime doesn't.

This level of dishonesty stinks. Stop trying to obsfuscate your clear LIE. I could not possibly open several threads to debunk the Parsifal concept whilst you LIE that I find Parsifal logical. This is what you have done. It is yet another lie to claim that the mere fact that I think the issue worth discussing is what shows i think it is logical. This is nonsense because you yourself have discussed Jesus, Yahweh, and others. Does that then mean you think Jesus and Yahweh logical simply because you sat down to attempt to debunk them.

Be a man and stand up and admit you lied and you are heaping new lies on your previous lie.

Martian: I already stated my position and your recourse was to dig up old threads of you writing the same thing. "Time is infinite, eternal bla bla bla." It's clear we disagree on the matter.

There has never been a time that you have attempted to rebutt any of the positions I took regarding time.

For one who says the claims of others are baseless and imaginary, why don't you just pick you your rifle and shoot down those claims with logic?

I asked key questions in that thread with thehomer about time, space and teh singularity. If I am so da.ft, just put me right with succint answers to those questions. Consider it charity, to save me from my delusions.

But you know as well as I do that you neither have any answers to those key posers, nor have the capacity to think through the posers.

Your best and highest talent is mockery - good for you.

I don't need to rebutt your position because your position is based on your emotions and things you think are logical, even when obervations shows that you're wrong.

Which observatioon has shown that I am wrong on time? Critical thinking simply shows that the current science is wrong on time. If you feel otherwise, answer the posers i raised. You and I know that you will wave your hand and claim you don't have the time. No pun intended. Coward.

I clicked on one of the links you posted from 2009 and you were there saying the same thing about your disagreement with the nature of time and how you feel you are right about what time "really is". Then you name dropped Galileo and Copernicus and how the opposition they faced, as if your rhetoric is akin to the assertions based on observation. Get off your high horse. You must have some special people around you that give you this over inflated ego. lol
You've stated your position a thousand times, you can't expect me to keep arguing about the same thing over and over and over. That will make me something like Logicboy, arguing about some people's beliefs which are not based in fact.

My questions are based on observations. As far as you and thehomer are concerned, everything is physical. You also believe that physical things exist in time and space. Accordingly the singularity, being physical, must also have existed in time and space, and as such,it is illogical to claim that there was no time and space at the point of the singularity. This is just as bad and even worse than the magical claims of religionists, which you mock.

Now, I can comfortably predict that you cannot and will not address this.

Because you lack the capacity for rigorous thought.

I am not name-dropping Galileo and Corpernicus: I mention them just to remind you lot that it is possible to think against current science and be correct even when the global intelligentsia are wholly wrong.

About Parsifal. That's between you, Nwankwo and whoever Parcifal is. And you've called is baseless claims "illumination", so don't try back away now.

Nwankwo is indeed the wisest man on nairaland along with a few other personal favorites of mine: and yes, he has said billions of illuminating things, but this is further evidence of dishonestly. I knew you were brute, but I never knew you could tell bare faced lies. Be HONEST: You SAID that I find things like parsifal logical, in an attempt to insinuate that religious dogmas are what I prefer. That was low trickery and a lie, because, as shown, I have strenuously argued against the whole Parsifal thing with Nwankwo and justcool. Its just like claiming I find the divinity of Jesus logical when you KNOW very well that I have argued strenuously against that too.

Please stop telling lies. Its low.

Another thread I opened to dispute Nwankwo's views on Parsifal -

https://www.nairaland.com/429591/oracle-monk-severance-parts-god

So stop insinuating patent falsities. It's low.

O, and by the way, in typical fashion, you did not say a word in rebuttal of the posts i quoted from my discussions with thehomer: you simply resorted to mockery based on a bare faced lie. Typical. How then can you expect to be taken seriously.

Martian: lol, I'm sorry! Where's M_Nwankwo? He needs to come and tell you about "spiritual germs" and "parcifal" because those are the type of things you consider logical. You don't have to repeat yourself, I know your position already. You view time as absolute. Good for you!!! Anyway, at least Osuofia has been to London, compared to the other guy who thinks he knows more about London than Londoners themselves, but whose knowledge about London is the same as his houseboy's.

You see, this proves to me the simple fact that your only recourse is to attempt to make a mockery or ridicule of things - even dishonestly. You are ready to tell bare faced lies in order to make an argument. In this regard, you know very well that I have had thousands of arguments with M_nwankwo, rejecting his beliefs on many points and the teaching of the Grail Message. One such prominent example is this -

https://www.nairaland.com/515335/m_nwankwo-justcool-inconsistencies-grail-message

Even though there are many others. In particular I have vehemently argued against his perception of Parsifal, in the same way as I have rejected teh Christian perception of the identity of Jesus. So it is more than lame and dishonest for you to attempt mockery by claiming that such things as Parsifal are what I find logical. My own arguments and contentions have NOTHING to do with Parsifal, Yahweh, Jesus, etc - and YOU know this very well. The fact that you cannot rebutt my position except with an attempt at mockery which stands on bare faced lies is just pathetic.

lmao, the great deep sight.

I was not referring to myself: I was referring to theists in general as far as these arguments on God and first cause are concerned.

plaetton: Breath of air. Thank you. i was almost suffocating under Under Deepsights Fantasies.

Like Jayriginal Stated before. Deepsight simply cannot seperate A mere notion, a mental projection, no matter how elegant, from the reality of what we know and we dont yet know.

To him, an elegant notion has to magically transform into indisputable fact that everyone has to accept or be mocked.
Sounds more like a religion.

We all, at one time or another,have considered non-scientific notions that usually fill in the gaps of knowledge. It is called imagination. Imagine if I were to write mine donw on paper and bury it a time capsule, someone,a thousand years from today, may find it and claim that they have discovered the holy grail that contains hidden knowledge about the universe.

It amazes me how Deepsight waxes easily and confidently about pre-existence and eternity, and forgets to remind us that those are simply abstract projections that are not supported by any science. He states them as facts and not as his opinions.

Please see my revert to martian above.

You gentlemen appear confused by simple precepts: and worse: u all generally seem to regard it as offensive if any person is confident of his own take on these issues. You then call such "imagination" and "assumptions" - briskly ignoring the other very simple possibility: namely the possibility that that other person has thought further, longer and better than you on the matter. That is what you hate to face. I'm not saying that is the case, but it is a possibility which you will not countenance, isn't it?

Martian: The event itself is when when time started. Time is a product of that expansion and the 13.7 billions years represents our measurement of that expansion of the singularity which gave rise to spacetime. Like I said before, you view time apart from the universe instead as a part of it, so you will find anything that goes against your views, “inherently illogical” . The singularity expanded and that’s what caused spacetime and everything else in the universe.
Even our regular everyday time is nothing but the spinning of the earth on its axis and its revolution around the sun. It’s just matter moving through spacetime and "time" is the measurement of the earth's relative motion.
I used “before” because our measurement of the expansion of the singularity(universe) starts at 10-43 seconds. It’s possible that better instruments and methods could afford a better understanding of the singularity.



lol,that's what I call most of the stuff you hold in high regard.

You are entirely wrong in your view. Wholly and completely wrong. You see, you fellas are pretty much, as I have said of Jayriginal, just like Osuofia in London. You see and hear things that you do not understand and they appear nice sounding in your ears. Its just the same way that my houseboy would think that the housegirl who speaks slightly better english than he does, is actually speaking queens english. This is just the way I look at people like yourself and jayriginal when you attempt to even discuss things which you have zero understanding of. You both are simply bedazzled by mumbo jumbo which you have no understanding of.

If you were to have a look at what you just wrote and if you were even vaguely logical, you would be appalled at your self. The load of contradictions should be spotted by a 6 year old.

Anyway, I have wasted my time previously hammering this issue out with the equally illogical poster called thehomer. I will drop the link, for anyone interested. I simply cant start repeating it all over again.

https://www.nairaland.com/577313/thehomer-now-lets-discuss-big

Nonetheless you may recall that within that thread you had made made statements which I have traditionally contested with many scientists over and over again. Basically these statements are to the effect that -

(x) time and space were created by or at the moment of the big slam and -

(y) the physical singularity existing prior to the big slam could be self-existent - or in your own words - "could simply be the default state of universe-like objects."

I feel that (x) contradicts (y) lamentably, and I am also severely at odds with the fundamental presupposition contained in each of (x) and (y) as separate statements. I did indicate in that thread that I would open a new thread to discuss these, and you did indicate your acceptance of that proposition.

So here goes.

Premise 1

If time was created by or at the moment of the big slam, then it is not possible to speak about a period "prior to " or "before" the big slam. Accordingly it is not possible to speak of anything existing prior to that instant - and this includes the pre-slam singularity that you spoke about.

Premise 2

Physical things exist in space and time. You stated that the pre slam singularity was physical. You then stated that there was no space or time at the point of the existence of the pre-slam singularity. How is it possible for a physical thing or state to exist without space and time.

Premises 1 & 2 evince the contradiction between (x) and (y).

Premise 3 - the problem with statement (x)

The problem with statement (x) is that if space was created by the big slam, please tell me what space is expanding into?

Premsie 4 - the problem with statement (y)

The problem with statement (y) is that it presumes a physical singularity to be self-existent. Aside from the fact that you have yet to properly articulate what that singularity is, the fundamental problem is that it is an illogicality to define any physical thing as self-existent because physical things are changeable whereas self-existence connotes immutability.

Conclusion: Your belief, and the assertion of the scientific community that time and space were ignited by or at the moment of the big slam, is insupportable, and delivers more contradictions than answers.

As a closing summary let us all carefully note that -

Thehomer -

- Claimed that time commenced with the big slam but then acceded that the big slam occured within a timeline

- Claimed that time commenced at the big slam, but that the timeline commenced at the singularity: which he says pre-existed the big slam

- Accepted that physical things exist in time and space

- Accepted that the singularity was physical and yet:

- insisted that there was no time at the singularity.

- Denies the obvious fact of pre-existing space given the expansion of the universe into already existing space by saying "i don't know"

- When asked the simple question: is it not obvious that inorder for something to expand, there must be some room into which it is expanding - avoids this starkly simple and obvious fact by saying that he is not sure if there must be room to accomadate such expansion.

That is the summary of wild contradictions which thehomer canvasses as credible science. I have pointed out these contradictions ad infinitum ad nauseum. It seems to me that the difference between my worldview and that of thehomer is simply that he takes current scientific thinking on any subject to be infallible: i do not. Otherwise he would not assume that the current scientific theories on time and space are exactly and infallibly correct - especially given the obvious contradictions and deficiencies that the theories throw up. I am of the view that it behoves a genuine thinker to prob beyond that which is offered by other human beings when such offerings throw up contradictions and inconsistencies.

In this regard i should mention the fact that people like Galileo Galilei and Nicholaus Corpernicus were derided in their day for propounding ideas that ran against the accepted "scientific" worldviews of the time. As it turns out, the questions and probes conducted by these people gave rise to better and more precise knowledge. Let us not be shy of challenging concepts that even Einstein has put forward regarding these things: for Einstein was only human: and you cannot tell me that science and knowledge will not continue to grow and expand beyond that which he knew in his day. If Einstein surpassed Newton's physical theories: surely with the passage of time and the growth of knowledge someone in the future may also surpass Einstein's physical theories, possibly even by contradicting them.

I will just leave a link to a discussion viaro, justcool and myself had about space a long while ago. That discussion i believe shows that some ideas about space may be wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-362859.0.html

MacDaddy01: lol.


why do you hate me so?

Hate is such a strong word. To be honest I actually like you: you're funny and entertaining and energetic, but sadly you are not yet rigorous in thought or logic. Please read and comment (line by line) on Prizm's.

Because it is lazy comebacks;s like this one that convince me that you guys have not even bothered to think deeply about the issues you wish to debate.

How can you then be taken seriously?

mkmyers45: What did you expect?

It is very nauseating that nobody will read or comment on Prizm's profound write-up, but tomorrow, on another thread we will see them arrogantly jumping up and down with silly phrases like "epic fail" and "argument from ignorance". . . . . . I dey laff.

As usual, when really deep and heavy stuff is produced, there is absolute silence from our baby atheists. No comment whatsoever. Telling, very telling.

Deep Sight: On the issue of limiting existence to material things, as well as on the issue of the existence of numbers, I present to Macdaddy and cohorts the following post from one of the best minds ever to grace this forum, Prizm.

I know you fellas will be too lazy to read and absorb it, but try to read it all. It will offer you great illumination.

There are many shades or categories of being/existence ie to say, that when we talk of things existing, there are different senses in which to understand that. There are things which exist because they possess matter; they are physical objects. They have concrete bodies or parts and as such can be seen, touched or felt. This is the most intuitive and common understanding of what it means when one says that a thing exists for they are all around us. So for example, one can say that cars, trees, rocks, water, air, planets, stars exist. This is an understanding that comes from a naturalistic examination of our world.

But why should we say that existence is limited to just the physical things that can be empirically manipulated? Not too many people live their actual daily lives on the presupposition that the only valid things existing are those things which are physical particulars or that have material form. Take some time and think about this point. Indeed the very thing that sets human beings apart as higher-functioning creatures on this earth is the human capacity to understand, process and utilize concepts which are not readily apparent from simple sense data.

In addition to physical objects which we can see, touch/feel, smell, taste or hear we have other reliable understandings of what it means for something to exist. Consider the notion of “Space and Time”. These entities (space and time) are what physical objects are extended into; physical object (matter) obtrudes into space-time; space and time exist even though one cannot literally see, touch/feel, hear, smell or taste them. In other words, you cannot isolate or investigate space and time in some test-tube or laboratory. They are not physically instantiated particulars/objects. Some lower life forms may never rationally comprehend the existence of space or time but their ignorance of that fact does not imply that space and time therefore do not exist.

Also think of the “Equator” or “the center of gravity of the solar system”. The equator has an attribute like a certain length; one can cross the equator but the equator is clearly NOT a physical object even though it exists in time and space. The same goes for the center of gravity of the solar system which is a point moving about in space. It is not a physical/material object either. It is an abstract spatiotemporal object for theoretically the center of gravity of the solar system is a moving point in space that you can momentarily enclose in a tiny container before it passes right through the container as it moves about.

Furthermore, consider this expression “Pete went to a judo match”. This statement makes sense to you, doesn’t it? I assume it does. In other words, if I make another equivalent statement like “Mary went to a dance rehearsal”, someone listening to me will not frown and declare that the statement is meaningless. But if we use a strict naturalistic sense in interpreting what exists, in both sentences the only substances we can empirically isolate are “Pete” in the first sentence and “Mary” in the second sentence. Those two objects have physical form. The rest of the sentence would then have to be described as a meaningless combination of words which do not exist because they can’t be empirically isolated. Would we be rationally justified in taking that stance? The answer is "No". What then do we call “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal”? It would be very absurd, to suggest that “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal” is a property of Pete or Mary in those sentences above. These are simply events.

Events are that which can occur, have occurred or are occurring in a present active sense. They have their own legitimate ontological existence. So for example, let us say that a certain John brushed his teeth this morning. This is an event that has already taken place—which is to say that the event has already occurred or existed. That is quite different from the active and present existing event right now as you read my post on your screen. What if someone comes out then and declares flatly that the event of John “brushing his teeth” cannot exist because the entire event is not a physical object? What if he denies the existence of that event because it lies in the past and is thus no longer capable of being presently witnessed? That is about as absurd as saying that the event “Pete went to a judo match” does not exist or is unreal because from the statement all we can materially grasp at is the physical form of Pete. Once again, an event is another example of existence that is non-material.

Events may involve finite particulars or matter which can be empirically investigated but taken as a whole, events are conceptually non-material. This means that an event as a subject is not composed of or structurally made out of matter. Think about this for a moment. Think about how impossible it will be for any person who purports to be a higher-functioning human being to live his or her life as though all events in the past did not really exist because such a person is committed to the view that only concrete material objects exist; Or how absurd it will be for such a person to doubt the existence of past events because he or she was not around to empirically validate these events. Do you see how such skepticism could lead one to simply assert that the earth is just 4 minutes old but with all appearances of age simply built in? Why? This is because such skepticism over the existence of the non-material (like events) will commit the skeptic to a fundamental disbelief in the rational existence of any past events outside one’s own immediate empirically verifiable personal experience.

Nevertheless we have other philosophical (metaphysical) and equally valid understanding of what it means for something to exist. These would include things like properties (size, color, weight etc), relations (being taller than, being sweeter than, being faster than, being greater or less than, being equal to etc), numbers or number sets (the set of all integers from negative infinity through zero to positive infinity), logic, propositions or mathematical proofs/theorems which are not concrete but abstract. These things have abstract existence unlike the way physical objects have concrete existence. This means that because these things exist in abstract form you could not possibly test them by empirical methods—which is to say that you cannot touch, taste, see, smell or hear them. They exist independent of any physical observer. In other words, these things exist whether or not there are human beings around to apprehend this abstract realm. But of course we do apprehend this abstract realm; and I’ll put it to you that no sane and higher-functioning human being lives his or her life as though the abstract does not exist.

On the issue of numbers, one is correct in a sense when one says that numbers can be used to express some understanding of the physical world. But that naïve view does not invalidate the idea that numbers themselves exist. Otherwise they cannot be employed in any meaningful way by humans who purport to make rational and logical sense of the world. By some of the arguments here, numbers will cease to exist if the only things existing in the world were simple-celled micro-organisms incapable of apprehending the existence of numbers. That idea is simply absurd. Aggregates, a collection of units or sum totals of quantities (or Numbers) exist whether there are sentient or intelligent life forms around to count. It merely redounds to our credit as intelligent humans that we can apprehend a realm of numbers and as such can count things or represent numbers pictorially or visually with numerals.

Just think about this: Did the number 4 simply begin to exist the first time some first intelligent human existing some distant time in the past looked around and counted out 4 objects? As you can see the answer is clearly “No”. There are many other examples to illustrate the point. No one thought up or invented numbers. Numbers are not the product of our creative imaginations or abilities. The correct view is that humans are relatively more advanced life-forms who can comprehend the realm of numbers and as such can invent or think up a visual representation for numbers as numerals and apply them in their day-to-day life.


https://www.nairaland.com/prizm/posts

mkmyers45: Shemantics Shemantics..Energy is eternal true or false?

Is material energy eternal in the past? If so, why did the big b@ng occur?

Martian: It describes the expansion from a state of "infinite" energy density and doesn't even attempt or presuppose anything before that. Big bang is based on the observation that galaxies are moving away from each other therefore they must have been closer before.It doesn't make any claims about how that singularity began. Also, since dark energy is part of the universe and is said to be accelerating the rate of expansion, why can't the cause of the big bang be an intrinsic part of the singularity(universe) just like dark energy is part of universe?



You have to know how the singularity happened to be the state it was in before it expanded, then you can start infering about the cause, first or otherwise. What you argue for is a cause for the big bang, which you've termed the "first cause" or god. It is god of the gaps because current knowledge is limited to planck time and you think it's reasonable to bring in a first cause at this particular juncture while. You also view the universe as existing within time instead of time being a part of the universe.

So long as there is a timeframe for that EVENT, then that presupposes a beginning. You can't wriggle out of that. Period.

The silly theory actually negates your statement to the extent that you use the word "before", because it holds that time did not exist before the expansion, and this is inherently illogical, as it would mean that nothing existed before the expansion, and as such, there was NO singularity to expand.

Nonsense, really.

plaetton: Juvenile antics. Challenge to prove what, that roast beef is what....?

I honestly cant believe you call his question juvenile - and yet assert that the FSM question is not?

Please reflect. His question is actually at the pith of the materialist viewpoint. It shows very simply that the view that holds only material things as existent is wrong. Did you read the red post I extracted from Prizm? I beg you desperately: read it.

jayriginal: Deep Sight, I was reading from the side and enjoying the thread. I have no wish to jump into the argument here with both feet as I have made my position extremely clear before now. My comments were made with a sense of humour (being as I then was, "in the spirit" ).

However, I'll reply certain points.



Not at all. One is free to discuss every topic under the sun.

My objection is so simple and so logical that you do not see it for what it is and that is quite exasperating. Its namely this; that something seems to be correct or feels correct does not mean as it is so. As a matter of fact, if you would put your uncaused cause argument in proper terms, you should immediately see what the problem is.

You are taking certain things for granted (making assumptions) and on those grounds, assert a very positive statement, excluding any kind of exception.

Reality must not conform to your expectation. That is all I have said. This is very basic.



I was joking of course.

Now listen, sometimes I follow a discussion up to a point and then a particular line interests me. Then I go after it. Nothing wrong with that. It could be a single line in the third page of a thread. Some threads I read and never comment. As far as our debates go, if you think I deviate, I assure you I dont. It is only because you refuse to recognize the basic hurdles in your path.

If we were to go down the road and jump from "the Universe is caused" to "god is the cause" you would meet more hurdles.

As for putting a foot forward, I assert that which I know, and I know little. Never will I make the kind of broad, all encompassing statements you make. It is wiser to listen more and talk less, and speak of what you know. If you think x is x, say you think so. Dont scream x is x. Your thoughts may be right or they may be wrong. If you dont know, dont say you do. Express yourself in the most appropriate terms. Seek to show why you think your opinion is right rather than telling us your opinion is fact.

That is all. Im not saying no one should discuss, Im saying discuss properly and in perspective.



Thats the point !
How you make your points matter.

I say why do we spar because we agree on this, yet when it comes to the cosmological argument, you ignore it.

Again, you are free to explain yourself, but recognize your limitations in so doing.



Why would I go about claiming things I do not know of ?

If you do so, you should expect to be called upon to prove your claims. In other words, he who asserts, must prove.



You need to get over yourself.
If anything, you are the one who has a mysterious angst against me. You've been downright rude to me on more than one occasion. Stop playing the victim jare.

You are still bringing nothing to the table, you know?

mkmyers45: Its amazing that you speak of it so when scientist are close to replicating it in a lab..0kelvin is impossible? No its just not practical now..Perfect Vaccum's are possible just like Ancient Aliens are abi na lie?

No problem - just show me one, and I will reverse my position.

On the issue of limiting existence to material things, as well as on the issue of the existence of numbers, I present to Macdaddy and cohorts the following post from one of the best minds ever to grace this forum, Prizm.

I know you fellas will be too lazy to read and absorb it, but try to read it all. It will offer you great illumination.

There are many shades or categories of being/existence ie to say, that when we talk of things existing, there are different senses in which to understand that. There are things which exist because they possess matter; they are physical objects. They have concrete bodies or parts and as such can be seen, touched or felt. This is the most intuitive and common understanding of what it means when one says that a thing exists for they are all around us. So for example, one can say that cars, trees, rocks, water, air, planets, stars exist. This is an understanding that comes from a naturalistic examination of our world.

But why should we say that existence is limited to just the physical things that can be empirically manipulated? Not too many people live their actual daily lives on the presupposition that the only valid things existing are those things which are physical particulars or that have material form. Take some time and think about this point. Indeed the very thing that sets human beings apart as higher-functioning creatures on this earth is the human capacity to understand, process and utilize concepts which are not readily apparent from simple sense data.

In addition to physical objects which we can see, touch/feel, smell, taste or hear we have other reliable understandings of what it means for something to exist. Consider the notion of “Space and Time”. These entities (space and time) are what physical objects are extended into; physical object (matter) obtrudes into space-time; space and time exist even though one cannot literally see, touch/feel, hear, smell or taste them. In other words, you cannot isolate or investigate space and time in some test-tube or laboratory. They are not physically instantiated particulars/objects. Some lower life forms may never rationally comprehend the existence of space or time but their ignorance of that fact does not imply that space and time therefore do not exist.

Also think of the “Equator” or “the center of gravity of the solar system”. The equator has an attribute like a certain length; one can cross the equator but the equator is clearly NOT a physical object even though it exists in time and space. The same goes for the center of gravity of the solar system which is a point moving about in space. It is not a physical/material object either. It is an abstract spatiotemporal object for theoretically the center of gravity of the solar system is a moving point in space that you can momentarily enclose in a tiny container before it passes right through the container as it moves about.

Furthermore, consider this expression “Pete went to a judo match”. This statement makes sense to you, doesn’t it? I assume it does. In other words, if I make another equivalent statement like “Mary went to a dance rehearsal”, someone listening to me will not frown and declare that the statement is meaningless. But if we use a strict naturalistic sense in interpreting what exists, in both sentences the only substances we can empirically isolate are “Pete” in the first sentence and “Mary” in the second sentence. Those two objects have physical form. The rest of the sentence would then have to be described as a meaningless combination of words which do not exist because they can’t be empirically isolated. Would we be rationally justified in taking that stance? The answer is "No". What then do we call “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal”? It would be very absurd, to suggest that “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal” is a property of Pete or Mary in those sentences above. These are simply events.

Events are that which can occur, have occurred or are occurring in a present active sense. They have their own legitimate ontological existence. So for example, let us say that a certain John brushed his teeth this morning. This is an event that has already taken place—which is to say that the event has already occurred or existed. That is quite different from the active and present existing event right now as you read my post on your screen. What if someone comes out then and declares flatly that the event of John “brushing his teeth” cannot exist because the entire event is not a physical object? What if he denies the existence of that event because it lies in the past and is thus no longer capable of being presently witnessed? That is about as absurd as saying that the event “Pete went to a judo match” does not exist or is unreal because from the statement all we can materially grasp at is the physical form of Pete. Once again, an event is another example of existence that is non-material.

Events may involve finite particulars or matter which can be empirically investigated but taken as a whole, events are conceptually non-material. This means that an event as a subject is not composed of or structurally made out of matter. Think about this for a moment. Think about how impossible it will be for any person who purports to be a higher-functioning human being to live his or her life as though all events in the past did not really exist because such a person is committed to the view that only concrete material objects exist; Or how absurd it will be for such a person to doubt the existence of past events because he or she was not around to empirically validate these events. Do you see how such skepticism could lead one to simply assert that the earth is just 4 minutes old but with all appearances of age simply built in? Why? This is because such skepticism over the existence of the non-material (like events) will commit the skeptic to a fundamental disbelief in the rational existence of any past events outside one’s own immediate empirically verifiable personal experience.

Nevertheless we have other philosophical (metaphysical) and equally valid understanding of what it means for something to exist. These would include things like properties (size, color, weight etc), relations (being taller than, being sweeter than, being faster than, being greater or less than, being equal to etc), numbers or number sets (the set of all integers from negative infinity through zero to positive infinity), logic, propositions or mathematical proofs/theorems which are not concrete but abstract. These things have abstract existence unlike the way physical objects have concrete existence. This means that because these things exist in abstract form you could not possibly test them by empirical methods—which is to say that you cannot touch, taste, see, smell or hear them. They exist independent of any physical observer. In other words, these things exist whether or not there are human beings around to apprehend this abstract realm. But of course we do apprehend this abstract realm; and I’ll put it to you that no sane and higher-functioning human being lives his or her life as though the abstract does not exist.

On the issue of numbers, one is correct in a sense when one says that numbers can be used to express some understanding of the physical world. But that naïve view does not invalidate the idea that numbers themselves exist. Otherwise they cannot be employed in any meaningful way by humans who purport to make rational and logical sense of the world. By some of the arguments here, numbers will cease to exist if the only things existing in the world were simple-celled micro-organisms incapable of apprehending the existence of numbers. That idea is simply absurd. Aggregates, a collection of units or sum totals of quantities (or Numbers) exist whether there are sentient or intelligent life forms around to count. It merely redounds to our credit as intelligent humans that we can apprehend a realm of numbers and as such can count things or represent numbers pictorially or visually with numerals.

Just think about this: Did the number 4 simply begin to exist the first time some first intelligent human existing some distant time in the past looked around and counted out 4 objects? As you can see the answer is clearly “No”. There are many other examples to illustrate the point. No one thought up or invented numbers. Numbers are not the product of our creative imaginations or abilities. The correct view is that humans are relatively more advanced life-forms who can comprehend the realm of numbers and as such can invent or think up a visual representation for numbers as numerals and apply them in their day-to-day life.


https://www.nairaland.com/prizm/posts

jayriginal: Eschewing the second part. This is what I expect my friend to see.

Lets not shift goal posts.

Its particularly sad you cannot yourself see why Plaetton's analogy fails. Within the "beautiful logic" he referred to, I made reference to the known fact that the universe does have a beginning. That was one of the key premises. If you can fathom a beginning for something like time, then you can make an argument. But such an intangible element does not have a beginning. Accordingly, being immaterial, the "logic" canot ever be applied to it: no goal posts have been shifted: all that has been shifted is your determination never to see simple sense in what is written: on account of your mysterious angst against the messenger, you revile the message.

mkmyers45: Deep Sight: Where you?

Oga mi. I am here. I don't know how else to answer you: I told you that there has NEVER been any such thing as a perfect vacuum observed ANYWHERE. I also extracted a link and posted the contents here to prove the point to you that perfect vacuums are so far not even possible in existence. Yet you insist, against the bare science, that a perfect vacuum must have existed once somewhere in space. Pray tell, where and when? And who observed such ever?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Wow, I leave the thread for a couple of hours and swoosh....eighty posts pass by. I won't say much, all I'll say to macdaddy, plaetton, mazaje et al is that holding a materialistic/naturalistic worldview will run you into many logical problems as has been evident in your difficulty to physically define your thought. I know you guys won't backdown but will continue chanting your mantra over and over again, I have come to accept that so I won't bother prolonging this unnecesarily.

I think we have come to an obvious conclusion which is that intangible entities exist. The only reason why you guys are not admitting it is because if you do, you would be accepting that there are such things that exist outside the natural and hence your materialistic worldview is shattered.

If you insist on sticking to your guns, then please be so kind as to take up my challenge.

Think of roast beef, tell us the physical length, breadth and depth of that thought as well as what it weighs. To clear all doubt, you can go a step further by holding it in your hand and taking a picture of it.

Failure to do this will lead us to one of two conclusions: it is either our existence is not limited to the material world or you are incapable of thought.

The other option you have when you have failed to do this is to admit that your materialistic worldview is faulty and then we can move on.

P/s: I am not interested in how many times you shout "epic fail" and "debunked". If you cannot meet my demands and won't be noble enough to admit the shortcomings of your position, then I don't think you deserve to have any more time wasted on you in this thread. Thank you[/quote]

MacDaddy01: Epic fail.


I'm too weak to rebutt

Lol, the lil fella is just out of his depth on your questions and can't even understand them, let alone grasp the import or attempt an answer.