₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: And how do you answer the physicist who says that the laws of physics were not applicable until said expansion ?

He will have to prove how the adamantine law of cause and effect would not apply to a material event commencing at a point. They have made several attempts, pointing at radioactive decay and virtual particles in a quantuum vacuum. You are well aware that both these attempts are failed attempts. I am still waiting for the successful attempt.

Anyway I will tell you something for free. So long as we speak of the finite realm of the material universe, there will be never any such successful proof debunking cause and effect. Never. Not ever. This is because cause and effect is hardwired into reality. Only self-existent things are beyond it: and this universe is not self-existent.

MacDaddy01: I dont believe in God because there is no evidence for God. No material evidence at all. None.

Honestly, the intense st.upidity of some of the standard refrains of atheists (such as this one) is jaw dropping. I don't know how someone, living in a material world, will turn about to say that he is yet to see any material evidence of God.

The statement is contradictory, and even betrays some challenges in grasping the very meaning of some simple words.

Enjoy your infantile delusions.

plaetton: Ok. so the left side of the equation is god, how about the right side of the equation?

Pls dont forget that there is an = (EQUAL) sign that connects both sides of the equation.

Therefore, left side = rigt side,
conversely, all properties or attributes of the left side = all properties and attributes of the right side(even if not manifest but in potential)

Do You Agree?

You are attempting again to say that the universe is the same thing as God. This does not work for the twin reasons that [x]the universe, having a beginning, is not self existent, and [y]the universe is material and again, this shows that it is not self-existent. As such, it is the result of that which is self existent.

The zero equation simply means ex nihilo nihil fit. It shows that there is a permanent somethingness. It does not show that the value or quantum of that permanent somethingness is the same as the value of the resultant universe. In fact, it can never be the same value since the universe is finite whereas the self-existent precursor must needs be of eternal and infinite nature. As such you cannot interprete the equal sign in that manner.

jayriginal: You called ?

You still miss the point. Its not about doubting cause and effect, its about the absolute value of cause and effect.

You based your arguments based on this notion, and I asked you if it held true absolutely. You said it did in everything we could observe and experience and I told you that such observation and experience are limited. I told you that trying to give the whole an attribute of its components is known as a compositional fallacy.

Thats logic. It can not be faulted.

You are using templates to make your arguments. In this particular instance, your assertion that this is a compositional fallacy fails for the simple reason that the universe demonstrably began to expand from a point. That discloses a necessary trigger which ever way you look at it: and suggesting the contrary amounts to subscribing to worse voodoo than the religionist.

Anyway, you and I have trashed this matter to bits and seems we won't ever see eye to eye on this one, so let's leave it.

plaetton: A probe is scheduled to land Mars today. It is not going to achieve that great feat by the use of philosophical and logical gymnastics,No, but by precise mathematical calculations based on the scientific facts that are already known.

Science remains the better and most reliable arbiter of our reality, far far ahead of philosophy and religious revelation/scripture.

I have said nothing of revelation or scripture, have I?

In truth, science derives from logic, and logic is philosophy.

In fact, there is a great deal of mathematics in philosophy.

All things are reason and logic, all things flow as such.

There ought to be no "science vs philosophy" mentality.

cyrexx: GBAM!

the eminent sage has pronounced judgement and declared that his transcedental incomprehensible wisdom can only be understood by himself and the few privileged people in his circle.

i bow to your superior wisdom and expertise, wise one.

at this juncture, i take a break and watch from the sidelines while the Deep-seeing wise one declares what nobody but him understands best.

gracias munchos

Sorry i didn't mean to come across like that: it just seems frustrating to me that discussants hardly make genuine attempts to study, research, contemplate, even meditate on, and grasp these things. I know I have spent the better part of my life doing so, and thus i cannot imagine how we can spend months without even being able to communicate and see these things. It makes me feel as though many atheists are only scuh because it is a sophisticated fad, or simply for the sake of argument.

One of the greatest posters ever seen on this forum, justcool, once remarked that unlike me, he has no energy or inclinationm to debate the existence of God repeatedly because, in his words, he does not want to be drawn into calling someone mad.

Some of the notions brick-batted around here frankly tend towards that.

Apologies though.

plaetton: Likewise, If you accept E=MC2, then you agree that matter and energy are interchangable, If you do accept this fact,

Then,
self-existent, intangible, immutable ENERGY = self-existent, tangible/intagible(depending on your perspective), mutable/immutable (again depending on your vantage point) UNIVERSE.

The bold is God, and it manifests its radiations in creation.

plaetton: So like I said previously, so you believe in evolution but with guidance of god?

Yes.

And with the entry of non-material essence into physical bodies, which is what gives them life and consciousness.

cyrexx: do you know that those religionists fairy-tale mongers you are sucking up to, that they see your deistic views as a hell-inspired, deluded, satan-deceived notions too?

O, believe me, I have had my fair share of battles with the religious on this forum. I don't know how old you are on this forum, but if you were active here from 2009, you will see how vilified, abused, demonized and even satanized I have been on account of my anti-religious views. In fact I can honestly tell you that there are religious posters on this forum who possess a living, breathing hatred for me without even knowing who I am in real life.

plaetton: These are great ideas, abstract Notions.But that is all they are. They are not facts and should never be conflated with known or observable facts.
The mistake you make is that you tend to transpose your loft subjective notions on the screen of reality. it may be good for you inside of you, but they may be, and most likely to be, rubbish as far as our new scientific oriented reality is concerned.

It is simple logic, my friend. Refute it first, before arriving at calculations of how likely it is to be rubbish.

I think you are still laboring under the notion that science should be somehow at war with the notion of God, and will in time refute any logical premise that proves the existence of God. It is this type of attitude that moves people like Jayriginal to doubt simple cause and effect, and moves people like Idehn to say that time and space do not exist at all, and moves people like Dawkins to say that it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky step.

It is a terrible burden to labor under: as I said before, it leads one to become FAR more illogical than the religionists.

cyrexx: yes, their god is explicably self-existent and their universe is explicably NOT self-existent by the same logic of cause of effect.

and they see other's views as delusional.

i think someone needs to define delusional

If you accept a self-existent universe, then the concept of self-existence by itself is acceptable to you.

The reason that the material universe cannot be self existent is that self existence connote immutability and intangibility.

I don't expect you to even begin to understand this though. In fact I don't expect you to even attempt to understand it. I know you will not.

plaetton: Good health is the opposite of disease, don't you know that. Good health is a perfect reference point for disease. not so?

Why do you call good health good health? How do you know that what we call good health is not some reduced state of health which causes us to die off within 70 - 80 years as the tenure of the illness?

You see, you cannot win this one.

You must accept the existence of perfection before you can make these allusions to imperfection.

Why do we have DNA errors and genetic diseases if we were designed by a perfect being? why does the body break down when it should not have? that is a valid question.
Why do we have sickle cell anaemia? Is that part of god's perfection that we are yet to understand?
We know that sickle cell anaemia is an imperfection because it causes suffering and death to those who have it. We observe that, dont we?

I already told you that in perfect balance there is position and negative and as such generation and degeneration. That is my final answer.

I dont know what is wrong with you lately, Deepsight. You acknowledge evolution but you also argue for intelligent design.

You see, the problem is that people think in black and white. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive precepts, but shallow minded theological and biological debaters have rendered it so.

plaetton: I guess saying that one does not believe in a mentally conjured deity qualifies as a delusion?
Saying that the universe may not have needed a fashioner(whom, by the way did not need a fashioner himself) is a delusion?.

If the universe did not need a fashioner, then it is self-existent.

That already shows you that one way or the other, something must be self-existent.

You therefore cannot scoff at the concept of self-existence: it is absolutely necessary, since things exist. I.e: Ex nihilo nihil fit.

You either believe in a self existent universe or a self-existent pre-universal cause - [God].

I have told you several times why I cannot accept the material universe as self-existent, i will not repeat it here.

Accordingly, a self-existent pre-universal cause is logical.

or saying that the universe was created by a non-observable, non-detectable god(another word for nothing) who just conveniently happens to be self-existent and uncreated?

O, by the way, the mere fact that a thing is unobserved or undetected does not mean that it does not exist. If we are to follow your logic, atoms only began to exist when they were discovered and observed by man. Obviously false.

@ Plaetton, Before adressing the above, let me just give you the summary in the link of the 4th Argument

The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu).

It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. It goes thus :

1. Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.

2. These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.

3. Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.

4. This pinnacle is whom we call God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

I will be stupefied if you fail to see Mr. Anony's point in this summary. Premise 3 above is exactly what nails you. If premise 3 is false, you cannot refer to ANYTHING as imperfect. Including disease.

plaetton: What am supposed to say that I dont know?
That since humans are imperfect in construction, only a perfect creator could have done so?, and therefore a perfect creator must exist.
what a twisted logic.

That is not the pith of the posers. What is happening to you this fine sunday?

The pith of the poser is the contradiction inherent in your question. How can you refer to any imperfection if you do not have a reference point for what is perfect. How can you then say something is [b]IM[/b]perfect? This is like saying that something is going downwards and then insisting that there is nothing like upwards. A logical impossibility. You are the ones contradicting yourselves.

Infact, embedded in your question is the recognition of Aquinas' 4th argument for the existence of God from the necessity of the existence of perfection -

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

I really cant figure out why anyone would go to all this lenght to prove the unprovable when simple evolution, with its trial and error mechanism is the simpliest explanation for disease and biological flaws.
This is something that your chief cheer leader, Deepsight, easily agrees. This is not something that should be debated in this era of human development.

Please do not misrepresent me. I believe in evolution but I have said repeatedly that by itself, it is insufficient, based on natural selection alone, to account for species today.

cyrexx: .

As bad as religious fairy tales can be, atheistic delusions are far worse and really do sc.rew logic in its backside without con.doms.

plaetton: Good day to all.

You are being less than objective.
Mr Anony has the habit of delving into the absurd and meaningless when he is confronted with questions that he cannot answer. In the process he always condradicts his own views. Rather than correct him, you keep egging him on.
I beleive all this is simply because of the unwillingness of these theists to admit that they dont know.
Ofcourse, it goes with the territory. You reach your conclusions first, and then you delve into all sorts of convoluted logic to try make the facts to fit your conclusions.

It still surprises me that you of all people have missed the pith of his brilliant posers.

Martian: Sure.

What is wrong with you? ? ? Dont you realize I am an argument junkie? I need you to argue back, otherwise i might die. These excessively responsible and dismissive rejoinders are spoiling my day. O d.amn it. Go away joor.

Martian: The earth's orbit is perfect for us to survive and it just happens to be "orderly" from our viewpoint. You say I have to look at the whole but you are not. You're infering for the whole universe based on the habitability of this planet but ignore the other planets that are devoid of life. You are implying that the purpose of the universe is to contain life instead of life being one of the possibilities or probabilities.

Fair comment, but life could not spontaneously arise ANYWHERE in this universe without pre-existent life. This is science, y'konw?

Spontaneous generation, as an idea, was debunked by Louis Pasteur eons ago.

It is surprising that people who imagine that they have a tendency to science (I say "imagine" because its obvious they actually have an aversion to clear science) ignore this is arriving at voodooistic and nonsensical postulations and assumptions.

We have eight planets in this solar system but only one contains life as we know it. Does this point to design or just the laws of nature as described by physics?

Reality works with logic. If you were going to create a planet with life, you could not do so in a void. You would need a star to circulate it about. That star in coming to existence would have other satellites. Same star could not exist in a void. It would need a galaxy. Same galaxy would have to be attached to clusters in a universe. In short, yes, you would need an entire universe to create life even on one physical planet.

Birth defects are deviation of what a human looks like but does the existence of the human point to a particular orderly plan?

Ehen? Ehen? So ya brain doesn't disclose order? I repeat: you have not read nada about the human brain. If you have, you will not say these things.

Does human physiology suggest purposeful and orderly design,

[/quote]I repeat: YET AGAIN: you have not read nada about the human brain. If you have, you will not say these things.

or does it align with scientific theories that don't need the existence of a designer?

And in your mind, all those "scientific" laws that make such possible spring from where? Nothingness? Do you remember ex nihilo nihil fit?

I really really wonder if you think about the things you say. The fact that you can hold such notions for years is particularly distressing. At no point do you pause to see the inherent absurdities.

Martian: Your opinion.

In the immortal words a friend of mine: "it is not my opinion, it is a fact".

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, While I appreciate the joke in "annoy" you must realize that with time the joke wears off and becomes an insult. For instance if I called you Deep Sh*t the first time as a joke, It can be overlooked but if I keep using it every time I address you, then it is no longer a joke but an insult. Please let's be civil to each other.[/quote]O, come on, you know this started as a typo made by Plaetton! Easy up man! But if you're sensitive about it, no worries, you won't hear it from me again.

As for Acts 10, I agree and the story behind the verse is really interesting, it explains perfectly what I've been saying i.e. you cannot reject Christ while accepting His message, and I'll come to it with time.

Please come to it presently.

Now If you agree I can explain to you what I believe as best as I can with God's grace. This is so that you get where I stand as a Christian without assuming things I don't necessarily hold.
Also If you agree, I'll ask that as we discuss, we follow reason to where it leads and not resort to playing with words or purposely trying to misunderstand each other or other such dishonest practices.

Yes I agree: and I say to you that there are many verses from Christ himself clearly saying that mere belief in his name is nothing: but even those who knew him not he will call brothers in his kingdom for their acts of love.

..........I have to go to church now, I'll continue when I come back.

Alright. I really was wondering why you hadn't left sooner. Cheers bro.

Pray for us sinners.

I might be heading off to church now too. . . albeit for altogether different reasons than worship. The church has proved an excellent hunting ground for many endeavors in this life. Truly.

Martian: You assume that it was created, hence your question about "perfect creation". I don't subscrive to your idea of a designer, so this question is meaningless.



Human knowledge is limited and people with expertise in various fields try to increase the that knowledge through various means. This link is an eample about how little we still know about our universe. Human knowledge limited but it has been increasing as we all progress.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.





This is just gross misrepresentation of my point that human knowledge is limited.It's because our knowledge has been increasing that we know about the universe (or what we call the universe). We know we exist because we are alive and doing the observing and learning.
If you want a comparison for existence and non existence, look at yourself. Prior to your conception, gestation and birth, you didn't exist.



Yes, and some people deal with the absurdity and possible meaningless nature of our existence by believing in a god. And you've said before that God is what gives your life meaning and without it,your life doesn't make sense. By believing in the Judeo christian idea of god, you give yourself hope of having a better existence after you die, with a being that is even more powerful than the sum total of the universe we haven't fully comprehended. The creators of christianity's way of dealing with the absurd, was to create a supernatural utopia where your "soul" goes when you die. Some people create their own gods and claim they exist because they they have to believe in a god to give meaning to their lives. I am content with living on earth and eventual death, so I don't need to create a god or have any ideas about surviving my own death. Brain dies, I die. Say hello to "non existence".

Silly irrational thoughtless gibberish.

wiegraf: My dictionary has 'truth' as:
A fact that has been verified
Confirmity to reality or actuality
A true statement
The quality of being near to the true

I'm sorry good sir but I think you don't know how to use the word. And I like the colors. Don't worry about offending me, I don't take most of I read from you seriously.

There is no purpose to evolution, it just is. Intelligent life? Then after millions of years and millions of species only 1 species we know of attained this? We are just lucky our ancestors won the genetic lottery and began to think abstractly. Now we can rationalize, have emotions/experiences and lord over the rest of life on this planet. If you want to dream up something to make yourself feel even more special, that's fine. I hope you don't abuse the word 'truth' there as I'm a pendant of sorts, and that irks me.

As for the bit about not beginning life, that's your opinion. I find the 'profound philosophical issues' he raises irrelevant. Again, knock yourself out if it gives you some sense of purpose (hopefully not misguided). This is a science thread though, no?

Nonsense.

Justcool:[/b]Lucifer actually fell lower than the entire creation because he originated above creation.

Please where is this place that Lucifer fell to? Are there any "places" [b]outside creation, that are not within divinity?

Humans in those lower regions are able to incarnate on earth due to the fall of mankind.

I assume these lower regions refer to one or some of the seven planets bearing humans in this universe according to your belief? Please confirm.

How many of such planets are lower than the earth and how many higher?

If tomorrow, by some space probe, mankind discovers intelligent civilizations on more than seven planets in this universe, will you still regard the Grail Message as absolute truth? This is an "if" question, so please answer it as such - supposing that this actually happens, not merely by answering that it will not happen. I ask this question to see your degree of dogmatism with regard to the absolute truth of the Grail Message.

^^^ O, and you [b]annoy[/b]ingly did not say anything about Acts 10: 34 - 35 which i cited?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Ok first of all you must stop calling me annoy because frankly it's annoying [/quote]Please Mr Annoy, its just a joke, you know where it started. . . don't become MR ANNOYED

To be honest, I agree with the scripture Okeyxyz cited because it agrees with God being a God of justice.

Then how could you say the below - -

Yes that is exactly hat I am saying. How can a person love God and yet reject Jesus Christ who is the manifestation of God in the flesh?
Note: It is a different thing entirely if one has never heard about Jesus Christ at all.

What does it entail to reject christ? I already posted alot about this question in other threads but I presume you have read them? I believe that rejecting christ means rejecting the teaching of love: and not rejecting notions about his deity (which no one can be expected to know for sure, much less commanded to know for sure in order to be saved) or notions about his death and resurrection.

Surely, christ himself taught as much in the parable of the good samaritan, and elsewhere, no?

Need I elaborate?

^^^ And let me clarify that I appreciate your distinction between timelessness and infinite time. We can chat about that some other time though. No pun intended.

We had some ruminations on these on this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/377521/oneness-infinity-explained

SNCOQ3: Secondly, you're confusing eternity for the word 'forever' or 'everlasting'; This words are used interchangeably with eternity but they're technically far apart. Let me explain: 'Forever' and 'Everlasting' simply means[b] time[/b] without end. 'beginning', 'now', 'after', 'present','future', 'ending' are functions of time. But Eternity means a state of timelessness -a condition where time does not exist. Eternal life is God kind of life but men are creatures of time - we think and live in sequence so its impossible to imagine eternity... I can only offer a very poor allusion to it but i'll try anyway:

to catch a glimpes of Eternity (lets say you're 25) is like having a vision of an angel smile and wave at you for just a second, but when you turn around, you find yourself in a very advanced society, you walk up to a guy, only to be told you look like the dude he read in a book who got missing 1000 years ago. For you: it was only a second. no ageing- no change. For an observer: you're 1025 years old with many generations gone by.

When Moses asked God for His name, God responded: IAM WHO IAM (meaning: My name is Eternity - you're a creature of time, you can only move from the present to the future but for Me: time begins and ends in Me)

God lives in the realm Eternity...Timelesness. And with Him, their is fullness of JOY!

This is just staggeringly BRILLIANT.

Sire, please post more on this board. We need minds like yours desperately.

Where is Martian. . . he needs to understand this when I say that God IS infinite time. . . eternity. . . .o, no, o second thoughts, let's leave martian. He will laugh at all this as nonsense.

wiegraf: ^^^
Confusing. Nothing deserving of a circlejerk was said yet you give yourselves one?

I don't get most of that post (maybe it could do with some punctuation, so should many of mine actually), but I'm assuming he thinks there has to be a purpose for evolution. There isn't one.

The bold is foolishness. Sorry to say that. Its the truth.

Deep, profound, and firmly-grounded foolishness.


Oh, and might I add: if you cannot see the profound philosophical issues Anony raised, and the counter-questions he used to illustrate the point, you are yet to start in this life. No arrogance, please. Just the hard truth.

Acts 10:34 35: For God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Mr Annoy, please consider this verse in addition to Romans in your response.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Oh ok, they are all one and the same truth to me and you can't have anyone without the other....the core of it being the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what it entails.[/quote]Are you saying that one cannot love God and love one's neighbout without believing in Jesus and accepting him as lord and personal savior?

okeyxyz: ^^^
So, By man's nature, you do not need any preacher to tell you when you have stolen another man's property, or that you have killed without cause and ra.ped without consent. It is in your nature to know these things. This is default righteousness given to all men to be aware of and respect. Now this is different from the righteousness through christ which gives you the "god nature".

Honestly, your surmise is excellent: and I may add that there are other scriptures that support this. I will raise them with Mr. Annoy.

Mr. Annoy, what is your comment on the scripture cited by Okeyxyz?