₦airaland Forum

Martian: No it doesn't. The big bang model just explains the expansion of the singularity(universe) from the plack epoch to now, not the exact beginning. Since current studies haven't been able to explain events at that scale clearly, you feel God has to fit there.
There is no difference between your god and the gods that were supposedly in charge of rain when humans didn't understand the weather. Once we understood the weather, people stopped sacrificing virgins and "rainmakers" went out of business..........

The B.ig bang Theory discloses a beginning for the universe to the extent that it refers to an event that occurred: an expansion.

It does not say that that expansion has been expanding eternally in the past, does it.

Thus the fact that it offers a timeframe for the occurence of the expansion [about 14 billion years ago] - it clearly presupposes a beginning for the universe.

Finally, if you were honest, you at least admit that the arguments I put there are not just "i dont know so God did it" - the God of the gaps. . . you know very very well that I argue for what attributes it would be reasonable to regard a first cause as having and proceed along those lines. If you know this, it is only fair for you to cease to dishonestly pretend that I am in some "Yahweh did it" zone. . . .

jayriginal: The gospel according to Deep Sight.

No: that the universe had a beginning is the gospel according to the Big B.ang Theory; which is the best science on the matter to date.

I cant believe you were giving me advice on one thread and getting caught here.
sh it happens.

Can't remember. Which thread?

jayriginal: Yup. But god can cause himself.

My bad, god is uncaused.

Jah Jehovah Emmanuel !!!

You see you have to seriously pause to be very rational in these discourses. It may have missed that I pointed out to you several times when we discussed the cosmological argument something cardinal. Namely that at ALL events, SOMETHING OR THE OTHER MUST be self existent: It is either a self existent cause of the universe, or a self existent universe. There's no escaping that one. You cannot have any other options whatsoever. If you state that it is an assumption that the universe had a beginning, then remember that the only other alternative is that it had no beginning, which would mean that it is self existent.

I therefore urged you to recognize that NO MAN can scoff at the concept of self existence: for EVERY MAN must needs accept one thing or the other as self existent, logically. It is either a self existent Cause or the universe is self existent. Therefore self-existence in itself is well grounded. The only possible question is if the universe is self existent.

It is my position that the universe cannot be self existent for two reasons -

1. Science: Best current scientific observations tell us that the universe commenced from a point with an expansion from a singularity. This indicates that it had a beginning AND as such cannot be self existent.

2. The universe is mutable, as I have sevrally explained, and as such cannot be self existent.

It thus seems to me that BOTH the science and the philosophy of the matter lead to the logical conclusion of a self existent cause. This is very simple reasoning and it surprises me that having repeated it so often, you only deride it as nonsensical without ever rebutting it.

It is not my gospel - it speaks for itself.

jayriginal: According to your understanding

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.

And you call yourself Deep Sight when you cant differentiate between Spaghetti and Indomie

Lol, I want to assume you're cracking jokes here. The example remains the same, be it macaroni, spagetti, noodles or even flying egusi.

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.

jayriginal: Ah, knowledge is hardly absolute. Why then do we spar Sir ?

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?

jayriginal: We do not know the cause of virtual particles, which suggests they may be uncaused but doesnt state that they are uncaused.

Absolutely not: I do not know how you make these sorts of logical leaps. That we do not know the cause DOES NOT in anyway suggest that they may be uncaused SO LONG AS THEY ARE OBSERVED TO EMERGE FROM OR WITHIN SOMETHING.

This is very simple: and that you still do not appreciate it in your sarcastic offer through your riposte to mkmyers is simply that it is patently absurd to observe something emerging from another thing and consider that such an emergent thing may be uncaused. This is like seeing a beam emerge from liquid substance, and then stating that since we do not know what caused the beam, it could be uncaused. Surely, you know that this is bare faced illogic.

The only circumstance in which we can say that something MAY be uncaused is if we see it emerge from NOTHING AT ALL AND WITHIN NOTHINGNESS. Now this in itself is impossible for two reasons. First there is nothing like nothingness. Secondly, the very act of emerging, presuposes a cause or trigger, otherwise it would simply self exist as opposed to emerging at a point in time.

MacDaddy01: Just because, I left you off the hook with your numbers?


You should take a leaf from Anony. He was the theist boss until the atheist got fed up and debunked him today! Th guy was trying to escape left and right but they atheists werent having it.

You haven't debunked nada on this thread or ever. If anything, you lot have been shamefully running away from simple questions. Plaetton and yourself ran from the question of attributes which i listed: it was not addressed for even one second - most shameful indeed. Finally you could not describe blue, which showed that your definition of existent things was wrong. You admitted as much regarding Time.

Enough for the day.

G'nite.

More -

In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is defined as the state (i.e. solution to the equations of the theory) with the lowest energy. To first approximation, this is simply a state with no particles, hence the name.

Even an ideal vacuum, thought of as the complete absence of anything, will not in practice remain empty. Consider a vacuum chamber that has been completely evacuated, so that the (classical) particle concentration is zero. The walls of the chamber will emit light in the form of black body radiation. This light carries momentum, so the vacuum does have a radiation pressure. This limitation applies even to the vacuum of interstellar space. Even if a region of space contains no particles, the cosmic microwave background fills the entire universe with black body radiation.

An ideal vacuum cannot exist even inside of a molecule. Each atom in the molecule exists as a probability function of space, which has a certain non-zero value everywhere in a given volume. Thus, even "between" the atoms there is a certain probability of finding a particle, so the space cannot be said to be a vacuum.



http://dicionario.sensagent.com/Torricellian%20vacuum/en-en/

So please there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. This means that virtual particles do not arise from nothing - they arise from something and as such cannot be said to be uncaused.

mkmyers45: What does it equate to? At absolute zero there is nothing - nothing/no bieng..Chemistry calms do a stand still as all concievable energy within that space is gone as it can be said to exist nowwhere..Yes Uncertainty Principle makes this concept this difficult but its clear that lack of energy within a space = Nothing

I keep asking you to show me this perfect vacuum.You have not.

Just kindly show me any space or vacuum that hhas zero energy. There is none. Read -

In everyday usage, vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] The word comes from the Latin term for "empty". Even putting aside the complexities of the quantum vacuum, [size=16pt]the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice. [/size]Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space", and use the term partial vacuum to refer to real vacuum. The Latin term in vacuo is also used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a vacuum.

The quality of a vacuum refers to how closely it approaches a perfect vacuum. Residual gas pressure is a primary indicator of quality, and is most commonly measured in units called torr, even in metric contexts. Lower pressures indicate higher quality, although other variables must also be taken into account. See ultra-high vacuum. Quantum theory sets limits for the best possible quality of vacuum, predicting that no volume of space can be perfectly empty. See QCD vacuum, for example. Outer space and interstellar space are naturally occurring high quality vacuums, mostly of much higher quality than can be created artificially with current technology.

http://dicionario.sensagent.com/Torricellian%20vacuum/en-en/

As I retire for the evening, let me just note that neither Plaetton nor Macdaddy have been able to answer any of the very simple questions put to them.

We saw very pitiful escapism, and till now,not a single answer.

This is enough to show who is really imagining things.

G'Nite fellas.

MacDaddy01: Epic fail. Thoughts come from memories. Memories are recorded events.


Thought exercise
-Think of a monster. You thought of a monster that you have seen in a movie or picture
-Think of an umbrella. You thought of either a generic umbrella or one you have seen before.
-Think of orokpo. Blank, no thoughts. You dont know what Orokpo is.


God is just a false memory or hallucination.

Your Orokpo turns up blank because you dont know what Orokpo is or it does not exist.

The word God, may turn up blank for you, but that is you: for same reasons as Orokpo.

Rest assured that it does not turn up blank for me, and for billions of others.

Some think of a Daddy in the Sky. For me, it turns up a white unwavering light.

mkmyers45: Conditions for a pure vacuum: 1. Maintaining a temperature of
0Kelvin [absolute zero]..now its
important to know that science has
never reached but they have
successfully cooled stuff to a few
hundreds of a billionth of a degree...Now the lowest
temperature ever
measured in the solar system was
on the Moon. Last year, NASA's
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
measured temperatures as low as −240°C in permanently shadowed
craters near the lunar south pole.
The coldest known place in the
universe is the Boomerang Nebula,
5,000 light years away from us in
the constellation Centaurus. Scientists reported in 1997 that
gases blowing out from a central
dying star have
expanded and rapidly cooled to 1
kelvin, only one degree warmer
than absolute zero. Usually, gas clouds in space have been warmed
to at least 2.7 kelvin by the cosmic
microwave background, the relic
radiation left over from the big
slam. But the Boomerang Nebula's
expansion creates a kind of cosmic refrigerator, allowing the gases to
maintain their unusual cool. Now i insist that it is logical to assume
that a certain point in time 0K
was obtainable within space
[container] for a period of time.

Zzero kelvin does not equate to nothingness.

mkmyers45: I opened up a thread so we wont muddle up a thread.. now. The conditions of a pure vaccum may never be re-attainable...Its not illogical to rubbish that such a state once existed that is why i used the
word 'have been'..

When was such a state ever attained please?

MacDaddy01: I can see my thoughts.


You can see yours.


They exist

That is not a problem. In the same way, people say that they see God, or feel God, or hear God.

You cannot any more disprove that than they can dispove the existence of your thoughts.

Thus your definition of things that exist was a wrong definition.

mkmyers45: @Deep Sight Virtual Vaccum's is just a way that permits us to observe the behaviour of virtual particles..Its just like a frequency/condition needed for us to notice them now if we truly observe and scrutinize evidence then you would have to agree with me that Perfect Vaccum have indeed been obtainable in space.

Please show me an example of the perfect vacuum that has been observed in space. The scientific fact is that none has ever been.I gave you a link. Read it.

Now since you have acknowledged that the vacuums observed are not perfect vacuums, then you must agree that virtual particles do not arise from nothing.

mkmyers45: @Deep Sight Virtual Vaccum's is just a way that permits us to observe the behaviour of virtual particles..Its just like a frequency/condition needed for us to notice them now if we truly observe and scrutinize evidence then you would have to agree with me that Perfect Vaccum have indeed been obtainable in space.

Please show mean exampleof the perfect vacuum that has been observed in space. The scientific fact is that none has ever been.I gave you a link. Read it.

Now since you have acknowledged that the vacuums observed are not perfect vacuums, then you must agree that virtual particles do not arise from nothing.

mazaje: The universe having a beginning means the universe had a beginning and thats all. . .NO one knows know what triggered it. . .Claiming you do remains a LIE. . .And ascribing qualities to what YOU think triggered it is even worse. No one knows what triggered it, people can only put forth their own speculations and thats all. .The god idea remains a speculation and god ideas like yahweh , allah and vishnus are obvious myths cos men created thos ideas. . . .

You know I am not into Yahweh and co, so please leave me out of that bl.ood thirsty tyrant's matter.

You concede that the universe had a trigger. There are tenable properties for what such a trigger must have - attributes that it must have. That's the point.

MacDaddy01: Reality is limited to senses. If Humans couldnt see blue, we wouldnt be talking about blue.


Anything beyond our senses is irelevant. We can not surpass our abilities or we would be superhuman.

It is beyond any human being in this world to perceive your thoughts with his 5 physical senses, is it not? Not even a brain scan can see your thoughts, do you deny this?

As such can we assert that your thoughts do not exist and are not relevant?

mkmyers45: Virtual particles are not caused by gases in the vaccum..you are mixing things up..Virtual particles are seemingly uncaused [and they are greatly uncertain and disobey energy laws], thier rate of appearance and disappearance and energy variances can in no way stem from the gases and my concepts of a perfect vaccum is to explain the true state of nothing which you said has never existed..

The point is that they do not emerge from nothingness.

If something emerges from or within something else, it is illogical to then claim that it has no cause.

Please read this post.

https://www.nairaland.com/393099/evolution-proves-creation/1#6849507

MacDaddy01: I can see blue.


Anyways, I can describe it to you if you see colours.


blue is the shade between violet and green

lololol

There you are. Even you had to laugh.

Point: Reality is not limited to senses.

Just like I told you: the wall you see is not really there. There are atoms there, but they do not form solidity. The only reason you cant walk through the wall is the motion between them. This is science:check it up if you doubt me. So is the wall real?

This seals the point that your argument about defining things that exist, as things that can be perceived with our senses only, is flawed.

Just like time exists. Just like galaxies which we cannot see, and will NEVER see, exist.

mazaje: Thougts exist and there is a definate way of analyzing them, we all have thoughts and every human being agrees to that. . Gods do NOT have definate evidence for their existence as such people do NOT all agree to their existence. . .Your god is YOUR own MAKING and you have labelled him as oneness of infinity, anonny's god is the mythical construct of the ancient jews and the greeks. . .Thoughts are real, gods are not and thats is the major difference. . .Actually god's exist only in thoughts. . .You can only think about oneness of infinity and ascribe to it what ever qualities you chose to ascribe to it. . .outside your thougts it does not exist in reality. . .

No: God is inferred from the fact that the universe demonstrably had a beginning. It would be unscientific, you know, to assert that the massive motion of the big b ang occured without a trigger.

MacDaddy01: It is like asking me to describe myself to someone whi has been blind from birth. You mad?


Why dont you describe God for me?

Good: so you CANNOT describe the color blue.

How then should I accept that it exists?

plaetton: Nonesense! To prove what?

Maybe after he shosw us holy spirit.

Exactly: and so the point remains that you can no more prove your thought of roast beef than he can prove holy spirit. So you have no grounds to allege that holy spirit does not exist, any more than he has grounds to allege that your thought of roast beef does not exist.

The binding point is that it is flawed to assert that reality is limited to perception of the senses or tangible things.

Mkmyers,

Please read here -

https://www.nairaland.com/393099/evolution-proves-creation/1#6849507

mkmyers45: I brought up virtual particles and you refuted it but did not go on to tell me what causes them..Remember that you said also that nothing can never exist which i showed to be not true..

Virtual particles do not arise from nothingness because the quantum vaccum in which they occur are not nothing. They contain gaseous pressure. Can nothingness contain gaseuos pressure?

MacDaddy01: I am partially colour blind.

Just because my sight is deficient, it doesnt mean that the colour doesn exist.

Please just assume that I am color blind.

I ask you again to describe the color blue to me.

Why are y'all running from questions?

mazaje: They claim god is tangible. . .He speaks to them, appears to some of them etc. . .The idea that god is intangible is just a LIE apologist use to push their various gods into the realm of the unknown. . . .

Just like your thoughts, no?

Do you thoughts exist?

Since you cannot demonstrate your thoughts to me, cold i rightly conclude that your thoughts do not exist?

Please demonstrate to me that you have thoughts.How do I know you are not an automaton?

plaetton: Are thoughts not a brain activity?

It is activity of the brain that produces thoughts. The thoughts themselves are not your neurons are they? Nor are they just two neurons interacting are they? Because the self same neurons produce different thoughts everyday, no?

Can you please take up anony's challenge and kindly demonstrate for me your thought of roast beef.

Thank you.

mazaje: You see the clear dishonesty and lies on display. . . .Thoughts do not come close to your mythical god hypothesis that is why you are playing this games. . .YOU claim god speaks to you, can you record one of your conversatiosn with him and play for us?. . .You claim god performs miracles, can you bring a CLEAR CUT example of your god performing miracles so that we will see and believe like your god healing an amputee and restoring the amputees limbs back. . .You are the ones making all these claims but when asked to substantiate the myths you are parroting around you run to the silly season biting your very long tail. . .

The point is simply the clear fact that claiming that God needs to be tangible in other to exist is a faulty claim: Wwe are showing you intangible things that obviously exist, such as thoughts.

MacDaddy01: lol....so how do we know that God isnt a religious pattern? How do we know that God is an illusion implanted in our heads by fraudsters? Trollolololo

Because of the cosmological question of the causation of the demonstrably finite universe.

But seriously, the facebook logo is not a complex or overlapping patter. The brain falters on some certain levels of complexity


Logic Boss

I asked you to describe blue for me. ASSUME i am blind or color blind.

Go on, describe it.

The point is that your senses cannot be the last parametre for what is real.

plaetton: Matter is mutable because matter is condensed energy.

Mutable things are not eternal in the past.

Only immutable things such as eternity itelf are.

Such as infinite space.

I do not know what triggered it. Do you?

Primordial energy, a.k.a: God.

Martian: If matter is energy and energy is never created or destroyed, why can't matter be self existent. Because you say so?

Because the universe demonstrably had a beginning.

plaetton: Catscans use color to identify areas of the brain responsible for certain feelings and emotions. Catscans can show mild or extreme pain and pleasure.
From the above, can we not say that feels and thoughts can now be measured and quantified?.

Can you show me the cat scan that displays a thought of roast beef?

Stop monkeying around: you know as well as I do that such scans only show brain activity: they do not read your mind or show your thoughts.

MacDaddy01: Visual illusions dont come in plain colours. They come in patterns to fool the brain because the brain forces itself to see patterns.

Exactly, so how do we know that the color of the facebook logo or the sky is not an illusion: since EVERYTHING we see has a pattern or backdrop, no?

Are you aware that everything we see might as well be such?

Do you know the reason you cannot walk through a wall? Do you know that its not because of the material particles forming the wall, but because of the motion and energy between the sub particles? So is a wall solid? In fact, do walls exist?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]best evidence would be to provide us with the thought so that we can see it, taste it, touch it, smell it etc. Just hold the thought in your hand and take a picture if you may.[/quote]Exactly.

Can you oblige us, Plaetton?

plaetton: Materials things are matter, which are aggregations of atomic particles, which aggregations of energy, which cannot be created nor destroyed, but can only change form or configuration.
Therein lies your permanent somethingness. Energy.
All roads lead to Rome, in this context, eternal and immutable Energy.
Are we agreed , or am I still escaping?

The universe was not created or conscioussly caused. No.
The big B.ang occurred when energy reached a certain threshold and breached its equilibrium.

All resulting motions thereafter are simple attempts, as required by the laws of physics, by a system to regain its original equilibrium

I have alrady explained to you that matter is mutable and as such could not be self existent.

What triggered the big b ang please?