₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: Ah, but mon ami, that does not move me in the slightest, for I know nought, and know that I know nought. Ok, I lied. Theres one thing I know.

I know that you are the physical embodiment of monumental folly.

You, are a comedian Sir. Cheap and pitiful.

Sorry. I hate to be the one to do this to you.

Abeg jaare. Do what to whom? Go read the posts of a poster called Viaro. In this business of yabbis, i took worthy heavy stuff from him and zillions of others. Your empty piffle will not move an old soldier. You must be living in la la land. As far as I know, you have not said anything worth reading ever since your lamentable arrival on this board. Skoot off.

Please PhysicsQED, come and make your posts and save me from reading such stark, asinine nothingness.

Repeated Post/ yabbis.

jayriginal: You catch on quick.

I supposed you would say so as soon as I read his words: you are free to continue your d.aft postulations as to cause and effect being "an assumption" and then turn around to say that yes, it applies to material finite things, and then turn around to say that the universe is such a thing: evidentially had a beginning: and then swing around to id.iotically to claim that the law of cause and effect is "an assumption" with regard to the universe.

Such id.iocy does not impress me: it will however, impress vacant minds such as yours.

No. You Sir, are a charlatan and a humbug plus a lightweight to boot !

Finished mas.turbating? I hope that helped you C.U.M.

Talking about lightweight, I am not sure that anyone has ever seen you post any thing of significance or remote moment anywhere on this forum. To be fair: you are one of the lightest minds I have ever engaged in this forum: there have been far far better. People who actually say things. Can you remind anyone of anything of significance that you have ever set forth on this forum, save cheer-leading for dolts such as logicboy, Dawkins and the rest.

Please stick your words right up where they belong and don't strive to associate where you do not belong.

PhysicsQED: Dude, he sometimes piles on assumptions upon assumptions upon misunderstandings

I am piling simple logic upon simple logic, my friend. Plain and simple for the simple to see.

and portrays what he's claiming to the contrary as superior

What is superior, is superior.

while implying or stating outright that others are foolish.

Who is foolish, is foolish.

Even if there were a reasonable argument somewhere in there, there's absolutely no line of thinking I've seen so far in our discussions that I haven't already come across

Because common logic and common sense were not born with me: they have existed from the dawn of time for the logical and the simple to see.

and I wouldn't pretend I think he's any less wrong than I do just to be polite.

No one expects this of you.

PhysicsQED: Of course.

Right. But I only introduced the issue of nothingness to point out that if there was only nothingness, there would be no need for time and no reason to assume that there was time.

This is not necessary since we are at a consensus that there is no such thing as "nothingness".

Okay. Here's the real problem.

You assert that it must necessarily "pre-exist" before expansion for whatever reason, but you don't say anything about this period of time over which it "pre-exists" or what the singularity is doing while "pre-existing" prior to expansion.

I am Deist, my good friend, you should bear that in mind in reference to the points I set forth.

As such when I make these points about pre-existent time, I am trying to show the materialist scientist that there necessaily pre-exists an element before the material universe: which element issues of, by and in the eternity of primordial reality: which is what GOD is.

Even if I accept that there was ever a period of time during which this point was not expanding (which I don't because I prefer the opposite assumption), I find it strange that you're willing to posit that there was such a specific period of time when there is no particular reason to make that assumption and when you seem unwilling to state how long this period of time would be.

I do not believe that the so called singuarity is in itself eternal in the past: I rather see reason to argue that it is not: and must have arisen from a pre-existent eternal element.

It is for this very reason that I shew thee, and thine comrades at arms: that nay, it makes no sense to refer to a singularity that "just is" - and of no cognate source - and worse; to begin to speak of an as yet assumed causeless expansion of no identifiable impetus, source, purpose or trigger.

It is the height of absurdity: and it is indeed far worse to therewith tie the notion of time to "commencing" with this materialist voodoo which makes no sense whatsoever. Time does not "commence" - motion does. The factor referred to as time by scientific hogwash today is not time in any sense whatsoever: it is a dimension of motion. Real time IS - and is not observed to "commence" or to "end" as it is in fact the intangible and infinite continuum into which events are interpolated.

I don't see how the issue of "what" it was arises. I mean I've already explained that you're in THAT thing right now so I don't see how there's a question of "what" it was that expanded.

So long as we speak of the origin of the universe, the issue of "what" expands is most apt: otherwise I will assume that you are a witch-doctor by daytime and a shaman by night: under which excellent vocations I would then see how you magically avoid the critical questions of "what". . . and the even more critical question of "why".

Well, no.

I mean, in your imagination, did it just "pop" into existence, sit around for a while, and then gain spatial extent (expand) later?

Certainly not: I AM, as I have told you, Deist, and as such I do not believe such voodoo: it is rather the materialist scientists whose arguments amount to the above.

My argument is this: God did it.

Yeah, you heard me right.

But let's assume for the sake of argument, that it was just sitting around for a while before expanding even though there is no more reason to go with that assumption than with the assumption that it was never was.

Let's then ask, what if it was sitting around for about 10^-9999999999^-99999999999^-999999999^-99999999^-9999999. . .^-999999 femtoseconds or better yet, a duration of time many times shorter than that before expanding. What would be the effective difference between it sitting around in stasis for that period of time and it never sitting around in stasis at all? None.

Again, this does not concern me: it is the trouble and the headache of the materialist scientist, whose postulations leave these questions begging.

As I told you, for my part: God did it.

Yes again: you did hear me right.

You've decided to separate time from the the object itself so that there is some kind of external absolute Newtonian timeline in which it is operating.

The separation is not mine: Time is indeed external and absolute.

Now the experiencing of time is what varies. Time itself is intangible, infinite, and is a component of the self-existence of that absolute that I refer to as GOD.

This particular mental/cognitive abstraction you've introduced is basically just an assumption. It was a popular assumption in the past, but it's a relic now.

Lol. Don't make me laugh.

In reality, Einstein needed to have deployed a different word altogether when he used the word "time". Real time has nothing whatsoever to do wih his theories. He refers simply to a dimension of motion. THAT IS NOT TIME.

Regrettably scientists still hold that misguided notion of motion as a reference to real time. It is not.

Time itself does not move, does not commence, does not end, does not break down, it is static, infinite, eternal, absolute and permanent.

Time is thus a component of that ABSOLUTE which is called GOD.

This "timeline" for its existence is predicated on the idea of time existing "prior to" the thing (the singularity) existing, which is an assumption that I don't have any particular reason to support.

You have every reason to support the notion I lay out - - ->

- - - > because it is illogical to speak of something happening [an event: the expansion] to a body [the singularity] if that body does not already exist!

Do phenomena occur to non-existent things?

No: they occur only to things that ALREADY exist - in one form or the other.

And in this alone rests the entire matter! Awfully SIMPLE!

This is so simple it is boring having to repeat it over and over: and that was why I referred you to all those threads and posts, but it seems you drew nothing therefrom.

(Please do note that this also covers a scenario - which you suggest - whereby expansion occurs at the same moment of the said singulatrity coming to exist: as it could not "come to exist" from nothingness: it must needs have still come to exist from something already existing: since it is not intangible or self existent.)

As I said in the other thread, time can only be measured in relation to some thing. Otherwise it is meaningless.

That is for you and I: FINITE beings living in a material world.

Note also: that you say: "can only be measured." Note the word - "measure". It applies only to the finite. Measurement is not the issue here: existence is. Not all that exists can be measured: only the finite can.

Please try using a measuring tape to measure the decreasing decimals of space between atomic or sub-atomic particles. You cannot measure such. Does that mean that such infinite space does not exist?

That sorts your issue here.

plaetton: ^^^^^^


During winter in the arctic areas, pilots suffer from what is called pilots vertigo. This is spacial disorientation due to snow covered or cloud covered terrain. The pilot is unable determine east or west, up or down because there are no frames of reference for his brain to work with. left on its own under such a circumstance, the brain remains in limbo and cannot discern its place in space.

Consider time.
If we assume that before the big. ba.ng there was no activity, no interactions,no planets, no stars, no gravity, no force or particle of any kind; just undifferentiated space with absolutely no frame of reference of any kind, then we can say that time, as we understand it,did not exist prior to the big bang.
Since time is defined as a duration of consciousness( our consciousness),the word duration would be not be needed since there was no activity, no reference point upon which to measure prior to the big ban.g.

Time is perception.
From the moment you close your eyes in the night to the moment you open them in the morning, where does time go?. while you are asleep, time is suspended in your consciousness, and you begin to make sense of once again when you wake up. sometimes, we can't even tell what time or what day it is when we wake up until we consult our memory or visual aids like clocks and calendars.

Well my good and gallant friend, I am quite drunk on a bottle of brandy right now, which I have used to down my earthy and timely woes: thus suffice to say in response to thine:

I I hopest that thou gettest it:

Perception is NOT reality: perception is ONLY COGNITIVE reality.

Gbam.

Hic. . . . . . where's that bottle now. . . .what a world it would be without alcohol. . . the greates investion b4 da wheel. . . .

Hic. . . . rolls over

jayriginal: ^^^
Aww how cute. The baby is name calling again.

SHADDAP! I have ALWAYS been a baby. And only babies inherit the kingdom o' Gad. . . hic. . . need to finist off this brandy, an get more polite. . . hic. . . .

jayriginal: If it were just you, I wouldnt have bothered. But people need to see you for who you are.

Thats all.

For years before you turned up here, there have: they have reviled me in more BRILLIANT ways than you or Dawkins could dream up nonsensicalities. Don't change a thing bro. St.upidity remains st.upidity. Dawkins remains st.upid, and worse: his admirers. Worse still - his CLOSET admirers - who when called out - deny him - as Peter denied Christ.

Yuck. This is not worth my bandwith. Times are hard. Skoot off, baby atheist, Logicboy and Dawkins admirer. NANSSENSE. CAPITAL.

jayriginal: A thousand and one then ?


You're quite smitten with him. Go easy.

Ironically funny attempts at being funny will not erase the frank facts: Richard Dawkins is about as respectable as logicboy: and both are about as admirable as brains consisting of the snuckle from the faeces of an Orangutan, as I have said before.

Children.

jayriginal: Watch your blood pressure mate.

By record, Juvenile Illiteracy is an increasin source of angina, and general heart DYSfunction. As such, I will urge you: and other "logicboy" admirers, to WATCH yours!

jayriginal: Your words judge you.

And so did many ecclessiatical scientists back in the day. . . . for postulating NANSENSE.

Dawkins is illiterate. Lousily so. Not a thousand flying pigs will change that fact.

jayriginal: Your words judge you.

O, i SO KNEW you would revert with an appeal to i.diotic authourity.

Dawkind is D.aft.

And so is anyone who regards him as anything more than daft.

N[u]A[/u]NSENSE.

In fact, let me add that anybody who ever speaks of time "commencing" URGENTLY needs to return his school certificates, refund his parents the school fees, and have his brain examined as a matter of urgent national, interntional and interstellar security.

PhysicsQED: I'm disappointed in your response.

If you ask "what" expanded, then it means you basically didn't comprehend much of what we were talking about in that speed of light thread and just seem to have, for whatever reason, some immense conceptual difficulty wrapping your mind around the idea of the big b.ang.

All the mass that currently exists in the universe - everything - was contained in one infinitesimally small point. Where you are getting this stuff about "no expansion" or "nothingness expanding" from is beyond me.

My friend, apologies for being off hand, I was quite irritable at the time and honestly these things tire me after years of long reading and writing in response: now settle down: you are being illogical:

Let's simplify.

1. The Big Ban.g refers to an expansion - no? Yes, it does.

2. Does nothingness "expand"? - No, because "nothingness" does not exist - by definition.

3. As such, referring to an expansion, necessarily indicates a reference to something that expanded. This is not obviated by referring to a "point" that contained all matter and energy - that is STILL SOMETHING - - - > Which must necessarily pre-exist, for us to be able to speak about it BEGINNING TO EXPAND.

4. It is thus apt to ask - what THAT thing was - that expanded.

5. For it to expand [whatever it was] it must have pre-existed its expansion - no? - Yes.

6. Otherwise you refer to something coming into existence out of nothing at the precise moment that the very same thing begins to expand? No? - YES.

7. As such, if something existed which expanded, then there must have existed a timeline for its existence.

8. Thus time as a whole, could not have commenced with the Big Ban.g.

Simple, sire.

The notions thus bandied about by current scientific thinking are as such WRONG - - - > and ridiculously so, such that any reasonable man of the current, and ALL men of the future - will laugh at such nonsense: in the same way as the flat earth has been laughed at. Do not be caught on the wrong side of scientific history: hang with reasonable Galileo against the illogical crowd.

Indeed, watching a documentary today on time-travel on Natgeo, I could not but marvel at how desperately lost many of these current postulations are. It only takes a little logical reasoning to see them for what they are: NONSENSE.

jayriginal: Had to smile at the OP. I guess Logicboy (not to boast) did start something or at the very least fuelled something on Nairaland.

Oh, yes he did fuel alot on NL. . . . such as increased juvenile idiocy.

jayriginal: Sure.
I said man of science.

No: Dawkins is NOT even a man of science. He is, as obvious from even the sligtest reading of his nonsensical claptrap, a disgrace to every scientific canon known to man.

He is also desperately and frighteningly illogical and illiterate.

Worse so; those who credit him with any iota of scientific inclination.

You see: science is logic: and the desperately illogical is therefore necessarily desperately unscientific.

In my humble opinion, the schools he attended should be closed down, his certificates withdrawn and used to wrap shawarmas, his books used as toilet paper, his postulations circulated on Joke sections of Internet Forums, and his brain fed to maggots.

comnsense: Well, Deepsight, you are evidently not an educated person if you are not aware or seek to argue this basic point about evolution. Baseless Assumptions? It is evident in nature and all around you. Have you ever read the origin of species by Darwin? Or is Darwin as idiotic as Krausse and should learn from the all knowing You and your well informed theory about the First Cause, the universal mind - something that equates to a lot of hot air.

O clear off.

Your riposte to PhysicsQED above though, does strike home and I hope for once he will stop to think things through properly. I had frankly grown accustommed to reading good sense from him but the foregoing posts were frankly disgraceful in the extreme.

PhysicsQED: It's getting very frustrating trying to explain this to you.

Its getting very boring reading your pseudo intellectual and perfectly nonsensical gibberish.

1. There is no such thing as "a singularity prior to the big b.ang." It's a nonsensical assertion and you deliberately keep trying to present this scenario that thehomer seems to have stamped permanently into your consciousness where there is some singularity just sitting there in stasis for some significant but unspecified period of time for whatever reason and then it starts expanding. Dispose of that idea at once and then maybe you can make some progress.

2. Do you even get what the singularity is? Do you understand the meaning of "infinitesimally small volume" and "infinite density"? How you could possibly ask me what expanded is astonishing

Staggtering gibberish. The last line in bold above particularly ranks as perhaps the most irrational, self-delusory and silly statement I have ever read on this forum. I suppose there was no expansion, or "nothingness" expanded. Your very statemenmt denies the occurence of the Big Bang. You are into voodoo Son, if you can seek to claim that the question - "WHAT EXPANDED?" - is not an apt scientific and philosophical/ logical question.

I sensed this from your very first write ups and am just glad i did not waste my energy on such nonsense.

Why attempt to make sense out of nonsense?

jayriginal: ^^^
Still trying to salvage a point ?

Be a good boy and run along will ya.

You're just not built for this.

SHADDAP!

jayriginal: ^^^
Must I teach you basics ?

Did I ever argue that it was theoretically possible ?

But HE said so. And that was a FALSE, WRONG, AND ILLOGICAL statement.

Saying something is theoretically possible is different from saying it is unlikely. He said it was theoretically possible but admitted that it was unlikely and went ahead to present a slow process that would make it likely. My contentions are [x][/b]it is not theoretically possible as he claimed [b][y] His example of why it is theoretically possible discloses a need for precedent intelligence and [b][z][/b]neither the age of the earth nor the development of species can support either claim.

I do not expect you to understand these issues though. Particularly [z]. Olodo.

but nowadays we have nit wits like Richard Dawkings writing that the eye could have "sprang into existence in a single lucky mutation".

As i leave, i'd like any objective readers to please kindly distinguish between the words in bold red above, and "theoretically possible".

OLODOS!

jayriginal: ^^^
Must I teach you basics ?

Did I ever argue that it was theoretically possible ?

You can insult all you want. It only shows exactly how "deep" you are.

O sharrap. Later.

jayriginal: Your post says it all? I thought I was the one who said those things ? Wouldn't a "Deeper Sighted" person making these assertions link instead to the posts that would confirm what you are saying ? Its easy enough to say something, but when you are called out you want to play games.



Im being dishonest ? Wow, you have a lot of nerve indeed. You say things people did not say and then you are called out, you try to bamboozle your way out of it. When that fails, you start with the names. Funny chap. Yes, "theoretically possible" were indeed his exact words and I knew that, but you didnt. Instead, you took him out of context and I called your attention to it.


Here, I'll do what you cannot do.



Notice, theres no "theoretically" in your statement. My response . . .



And I went on to quote what the man said and even provided you with the link to verify it.

Stop being dishonest. Its not "theoretically" possible. In fact, his example as to why its theoretically possible discloses a need for precedent intelligence. Because he spoke about the theoretical possibility being about a code being written out for such a mutation.

Men, una foolish sha.

The thread is there for all to read, and yes, my post sums up the nonsense that you were saying. It really does. Anyone who wants to see the arrant nonsense for itself will have your own posts available on the self-same page, so stop whinning about that.

You, my friend, are far worse than any religionist I have ever come across.

Sadly, you imagine your discipleship of Dawkins and other nitwits of his ilk to render you enlightened. You are a laugh.

jayriginal: Nope you said "Dawkins said" not "Dawkins said theoretically". Theres a difference. I did tell you you were "taking liberties with the truth".

I shouldnt have to give you basic lessons should I ?

Oh, and I follow nobody. I'm sorry, you cant stick that one on me.

Learn to argue ok ?

His EXACT WORDS were "theoretically possible".

Stop being dishonest.

jayriginal: ^^^

Ok I laughed really hard when I opened the link. It leads to one of your posts. You really want to be taken seriously ?

Come on.

Yep. Deliberate. That post says it all. Besides, its in the same page with your statements, so anyone can see the whole discussion.

jayriginal: The thread is there and I know my words. Frankly, I am not shocked because you displayed your wonderful talent for constructing strawmen and misconstruing arguments throughout the thread. I even remember having to correct you recently over a Dawkins quote.

I'm not responsible for what you understand.

Oh no, lest thou perish in thine own folly, thou corectedest me not: Dawkins DID say that it is "theoretically possible" for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky mutation, and I remember I specifically explained to you what "theoretically" means - and such a thing is NOT "theoretically" possible. Nor possible.

Later, my illogical friend.

Someday, you will wake up from the delusion that following dolts like Dawkins is some form of sophistication.

jayriginal: ^^^
No need for hysterics. Simply quote me if you dare.

Nah, i don't have the energy. It's my new flame's birthday today and i gat loads to do to impress her. Anyone who has the time can read through the thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/10#10598392

You were speaking nonsense. Simple.

Accepting cause and effect as a natural law, then denying same law, then saying that there is no proof for same law at a cosmic scale, then saying that it is an assumption to say that the event of the big b.ang had a cause. What a load of rubbish. Go give it to someone else.

On second thoughts, i shouldn't be shocked. It has always been my experience that people deny their previous illogic when confronted with it afterwards. This only serves to confirm that you now recognize, albeit subconsciously, that you were speaking utter nonsense on the thread where we discussed the cosmological argument and the cause and effect issue. Nonsensical balderdash. Glad you have come round to deny your own words. What a waste of my time.

jayriginal: You see yourself ?

Just like I asked you to quote me and you couldn't. Its always easier to argue after you have distorted the other position.

Really? REALLY? REALLY? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

The thread is there, and you know your words. Frankly, I am shocked.

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Hi Justcool. Thanks for your contribution. It is indeed correct to voice your opposition to my views. The experiencing of the Will of God is personal and it is the sacred right of each spirit to voice what he intuitively senses as the Truth. The will of God will at some point in the process of the evolution of each spirit demonstrate in very clear terms whether the perception is right or wrong. I have examined the points you raised and do respect them. But they are opposed to what I sense and what I experience. My point is simple and that is, no wrong or evil volition can be found in the spiritual and primordial spiritual. The spiritual and the primordial spiritual are kingdoms of God (Gods backyard so to speak). Their is nothing more evil than a personal attack against God or his servants. This is exactly what Lucifer did. And to imagine that a radiation of God no matter how endowed can attack God in his own backyard is inconceivable and in my sensing impossible. As always, stay blessed.[/quote]Are you sure about the bold with reference to the red bold?

Are you saying that there is no wrong whatsoever in spiritual?

If that is the case, it would be very hard to see how wrong arose in the worlds of matter, considering that these worlds are a reflection of the spiritual?

jayriginal: I'd like that very much.

Sorry, I don't have the energy or time for that mate. Nor the inclination. It beggars belief though, that you would attempt to deny your own words.