₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: You make no sense either. I do not take anything as a given.

One day sha, we shall sha hear your own opinion, o Shah.

Martian: The only space I know is not yet fully understood BUT it's not void.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

I hope you understand what I mean by the word void: i do not mean nothingness.

I mean that infinite "area" into which your own scientifically defined space is expanding into.

Kay 17: Infinite in what sense??

All existing entities are self existent, SINCE they don't owe their origin to nothingness.

Eternity invokes a logical absurdity of infinite time.

There is trouble accepting the immaterial to be the sum total of reality/everything and yet producing the material.

The popular First Cause is an overstretched, exaggerated with unnecessary qualities like consciousness and intelligence.

Sorry, I can't really understand what you have said.

Martian: But space is not a void and it's not infinite,

Yes it is: but mark you, that is not "nothing".

but it's said to be expanding because galaxies are moving away from each other

Expanding into what? Moving into what? Nothingness? Do you believe physical things can move into nothingness?

...............................................are you talking about another space?

Yes, because i describe space differently from how current science describes it. I have given my definition of it severally, and I say to you that the definition given by current science is not logically consistent.

God is eternity/space.............do you mean like the spacetime continuum or am I still missing something?

Yes, but not the spacetime of science, rather, the compound of infinite space and eternity which I described as ONE.

It seems you're separating the space time continuum as defined by physics and giving them attributes of timelessness.

Yes.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

This always makes me chuckle, and I feel it is so true.

There are many basic truths hidden in the fantastical theological myths of the peoples of the world.

caezar: I want to stick to the logical necessity of God. I do not want to discuss his religion.

Exactly: it is that very logical necessity of God that the athiest fails to grasp.

Kay 17: Ok, define the Character of the First Cause.

Self-existent, uncaused, infinite and eternal, immaterial.

Martian: Is it spatial or non spatial?



Eternity Synonyms : everlasting, foreverness, infinity, perpetuity

Excellent.

No it is not spatial, but is combined with the void that is infinite space.

That eternal combination is again what God is.

Eternity / infinite time - the continuum into which events are interpolated.

Void - infinite space) - the void into which things are interpolated.

In these two simple facts rest the mystery of all existence for those who are willing and able to see it in all simplicity.

That very infinite continuum and infinite void is exactly what is the somethingness that is encapsulated as the foundation of reality and which is what God is.

De Rerum Natura

The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius expressed this principle in his first book of De Rerum Natura (eng. title On the Nature of Things)

Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet,
nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam.[1]
English translation:
But only Nature's aspect and her law,
Which, teaching us, hath this exordium:
Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.[2]
He then continues on discussing how matter is required to make matter and that objects cannot spring forth without reasonable cause.
Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibus rebus
omne genus nasci posset, nil semine egeret.
e mare primum homines, e terra posset oriri
squamigerum genus et volucres erumpere caelo;[3]

English translation

Suppose all sprang from all things: any kind
Might take its origin from any thing,
No fixed seed required. Men from the sea
Might rise, and from the land the scaly breed,
And, fowl full fledged come bursting from the sky;[4]
[edit]King Lear

In William Shakespeare's King Lear, the king says, "Nothing will come of nothing" to his daughter Cordelia, meaning that as long as she says nothing to flatter him, she will receive nothing from him.[5] Later, Lear nearly repeats the line, saying, "Nothing can be made out of nothing" (Act 1.1 and Act 1.4 respectively).

"KING LEAR: ..what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR: Nothing?!
CORDELIA: Nothing.
KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing, speak again.

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

wiegraf: Do you think it's sentient?

That, we cannot logically infer or "dis-infer"

Do you think it has supernatural pproperties, that can defy logic?

Nothing defies logic, my friend. God is the sum of all logic.

Now I honestly cannot understand some of the horribly irrational rhetoric being advanced by atheists on this thread. Mostly when I read all this, I am tempted (in the immortal words of Enigma) "not to reply at all", some of it is sickeningingly contradictory and self defeating, but most of it just betrays a basic deficiency in the most elementary logic. You will see, for instance, how Area Boy asserted (in line with the gibberish he read from Krauss) that the total energy of the universe is zero; and that in this circumstance the universe would have popped up unbidden from nothing. You will also see how Wiegraf asserted that all initial energy is nothingness, because it cancels out - lol - and then asserted that we all agree that the self same nothingness does not exist!

It is honestly incredible, how educated persons can arrive at such unspeakably contradictory balderdash. The saddest aspect of all this is that these persons somehow imagine their thinking to be any better than that of the religionist. In some epileptic fit of deluded excitement, they imagine such hopelessly contradictory nonsense to pass for sophistication. It seems to me that the thinking is that anybody who rejects religion has crossed the Rubicon, and achieved philosophical and intellectual Nirvana: this is not so.

Just look at the two eminently ridiculous assertions from Area Boy and Wiegraf which I cited. Notwithstanding that zero refers to nothingness, Area Boy piggy-backs on Krauss to assert that the total energy in the universe is zero: not recognizing that the implication of this would be that the universe does not exist: he then goes further to say that on account of this, the universe pops into existence from nothingness. Now this is a person who will make this kind of nonsensical suggestion and yet presume to laugh at the theist.

Wiegraf, for his part, does worse: he says that everything is nothingness at the start, and then turns about to say that nothingness does not exist - whilst describing the initial state of things as consisting of matter and other elements.

Can any serious thinker take these folk seriously?

Can they take themselves seriously?

Baby thinkers, drunk on the new wine of the new discovery of new atheism.

In a line, the summary of the maxim mentioned by the OP, is that from nothingness comes nothing. From this, we can see that the somethingness that we know, did not come from nothing. We can also see that any other somethingness that preceded this somethingness did not come from nothing. We can thus see that, as Caezar said, if there was nothingness at the beginning, then there would never have been somethingness, as nothingness cannot bear somethingness. We therefore see that there was always somethingness. This is the simple reasoning that evinces that which is eternal and self existent. It seems however, to be beyond some folk, as simple as it is.

Still, no one has addressed my question on whether eternity exists, and whether or not it is caused.

plaetton: Unless my understanding of english is really bad, FIRST CAUSE supposes a beginning, whereas, SELF-EXISTENCE supposes no beginning.

Am I right or wrong, people ?

First cause presupposes a beginning of other things, not of itself.

wiegraf: You sound mad, you mad? Do not fear, we've been doing fine without zeus, we'll manage fine without god. Now, let's hope it doesn't take you an eternity to answer a mere human like me (unlike the last time when you had to be backed into a corner by platteon, about your definition of god, that was just sad). I agree with energy being 'self-existent', I agree this god has been around (not your silly bshit without any proof about it creating himself, htf do you come up with this s.hit, why do you even need to), its just been around, call it a consequence of abtract concepts like numbers or whatever: we don't know. Now, ignore the details, is 'god' a personal god?

Mad? I am not the one who said that everything was nothingness and then contradicted that by saying that nothingness does not exist.

You did that, mate.

Purist: Hi caezar,



hmm. . . the ad hoc hypothesis at play here.

If the first cause can be classified as "something", do you not consider your claim here to be self-contradictory? Like an oxymoron? A logical impossibility of some sort? Consider this argument:

1) Something exists
1) First Cause is "something"
2) Something cannot come from nothing.
Ergo,
4) First Cause (being something) cannot come from nothing
(In other words, First Cause came from something.)

Point of correction: the cosmological argument does not posit that anything that exists has a cause. Now think carefully about what I am about to say before responding: it posits that anything that begins to exist, has a cause.

wiegraf: Let's see.. The phrasing might be a little poor, that's about it. I equate infinite energy with nothing by virtue said energy cancelling itself out, and it having the same properties whichever way you look. This might turn out to be hogwash but the underlying principle is still fairly accurate. First there was energy. Energy's balance is upset, matter is spread about: that is our current universe. Matter is energy, no?

It is incoherent in the extreme and absolutely nonsensical to speak of these quantities and at the same time equate them with nothingness. At best, you have no idea of the definition of the word "nothingness". At worst, you are suffering from some incurable mental confusion tending towards irrational delusion. As, of course, are all atheists. Some worse than others: your words would render you amongst the most lamentable cases of loss of rationality.

We agree there is no such thing as nothing, else we wouldn't be here.

And that you could have added this to your first claim that there was nothingness is just sad.

Have a nice day. I have nothing to debate with this sort of confused nonsense.

plaetton: Today, I am an athiest

I have told you before that you are NOT an atheist. You are a CLEAR PANTHEIST.

wiegraf: If you require something to be imutable, we can go with infinite energy. If there was only infinite energy as a starting point, you could actually say there was: nothing.

Everything would be the same, every point you pass in which ever direction would be infinite energy, practically nothing (or the exact same properties everywhere). Matter and antimatter(both energy) are constantly colliding, infinitely, and cancelling each other out. Every once in a while though some matter escapes (even antimatter escapes, but for unknown reasons this is much, much rarer, so much so antimatter is considered the most expensive substance on this rock), and this makes up the known universe. (if you think this doesn't make sense look up the incompleteness theorem, math can be tricky). The big ban.g to most is one of these collisions going ballistic, for reasons we are not too clear of, and creating unimaginable amounts of matter in a few seconds. The main point is the infinite energy is still there, just canceling itself out, being "nothing".

I have bolded some text above in red and in blue.

I hope, that without having to speak further, you can read your own words and see clearly how disastrously and irretrievably the red words contradict the blue.

I'm not going to make any assertions though, as this is not fact. I'm not even sure if I understand the concepts and details, this is just my personal opinions and stuff. However, objectively, I cannot see in any way how you can justify creation as "reeking of something personal". You'll have to explain how, why, else it comes across to me as you believing in what you want to believe, perhaps because it makes you comfortable.

Well so long as we are speaking of the EXISTENCE of God, for now it is not relevant to ponder the question of its being personal or impersonal. Let's address its existence as a starter.

jayriginal: EDIT:
What is eternity ? What is infinity ?

I posed the question to you, my student, and you are throwing it back at me? Ha.

Ok, here is my own answer: Eternity is the infinite continuum into which events are interpolated.

Now attempt my question on whether eternity exists or not; and whether it is caused or not.

Thank you, ever kind, noble, gracious and majestic sir: Lord of the seven seas, Imperial Regent for Africa, and most exalted Prince of Persia.

jayriginal: Nope. No basis, except for convenience.

What then would reside on the left side of the zero equation in order to render reality existent?

Perhaps, you simply don't like the word "God". . . you can substitute it with another word of your choosing. . . BUT something permanent is THERE.

plaetton: Eternity is a concept, an idea, a convenient way to help our mind define unacounted time.

Are you saying eternity does not exist, save in our minds?

Lord Babs: I admit i'm not a fan of mathematics, but at least i'm not as vapid to not give a simple mathematical illustration of my argument. Here is it:
1. Let 0 stands for 'nothing'.
2. Let 1 stands for 'something'.
3. Hence, 0 + 0 = 0(i.e.nothing and nothing = nothing).
0 - 0 = 0(i.e. nothing without nothing is still nothing)...Ex nihilo nihil fit.
4. Hence, 1 + 1 = 2(i.e. something and something is two somethings).
1 - 1 = 0(something without something is nothing).
5. Hence, if God(something) exists without something else, it is NO-THING!

Everything is correct here except No. 5, which is hopelessly incoherent. How do you apply 5 to 4? Why is a subtraction deployed there in your representational mathematics? Such a subtraction is only properly applied in representational mathematics when something exists, and then ceases to exist i.e it is REMOVED from the equation.

This repeated confusion is exactly why I say you are grappling with concepts you have not even settled down to calmly reflect on, let alone study.

jayriginal: What a bore.


There is no basis for saying "god did not begin" other than a need to escape from clumsy dogma.

There is: the very maxim under discussion demonstrates that fact.

Kay 17: Change is believed by many wise men *smile* as the only permanent object. Understanding that the First Cause gives off a potential the Universe and its constituent matter, then one must acknowledge that the First Cause itself changed/transformed/altered state to form the Universe. The universe is not a separate entity but should be at least a part of the First Cause.

Therefore concluding that due to the alterable state of Matter and energy, both can't be the first cause is faulty. Also, to suggest the immaterial gives off the material, knowing both entities radically diFferent and considering that both don't share the same substance is to seek for a Miracle.

But it could not logically be otherwise.

Deep Sight: Tell me, does eternity exist? Is it something or nothing? Does it have a beginning or a cause?

In fact, i want every contributor to this thread to attempt this question.

Lord Babs: The first fallacy you pandered to is that of Slippery slope, by disembarking from the progression of my arguments, tagging it 'gibberish'. I forgive your ignorance. The second fallacy you're guilty of is called 'petitio principii'(begging the question), by engaging in a circular argument, when you used what requires proof itself to prove your argument.

Hahaha. Friend, you do provide comic relief.

I can't but tell you that the foundation of your whole argument is faulty.

No sir, you rather come across as a nursery school kid attempting Further Maths.

Using the phantom called self-existence to prove the status quo, is like recoursing to the bible to prove the existential puzzles.

What is this? At least write proper English.

You don't create an imagined phenomenon and call it a supportive determiner of real events; it is fallacious and fraudulent. It's like saying, all certain humans will die..,and later say that the parents of those humans cannot die: are the parents not humans? Undoubtedly, we all know that this presumed self-existent entity is also a part and under the governing rules of existentiality. So, why do you now prematurely and illogically obviated this force from the rule of causality.

What I did was to show you that the very maxim you started with actually proves the existence of God: for it shows clearly that for anything at all to exist, a permanent something must exist.

Hence, i'll appeal to you to stop derailing the thread with your potpourri of fallacies.

I insist on carrying on.

Stop behaving you know what you don't know at all.

Why should I stop when in fact I do know it all?

Answer the numerous logical questions from my previous posts!

They have been answered already but being the bad student that you are you refused to take notes. You must repeat the class. Here goes -

Does God have an origin?

No: God IS ORIGIN.

Does he have a creator?

Let us not ascribe a s.ex to God. Going forward use the term "IT" if you must, just so that we are neutral. No, God does not have a creator.

Does he have a beginning?

No, God does not have a beginning.

If the answers to these questions is NO!then you'll be unlearned to continue saying this your God is SOMETHING.

Yes, God is something.

Because, whatever you call 'something' must have a beginning, an origin, and a cause! Prove me wrong dude!

No: there are things that do not have such. I have given examples of self-existent things already. Philosophically these are necessary, as opposed to contingent things. We ASKED you to read this up. You have failed to do so.

Tell me, does eternity exist? Is it something or nothing? Does it have a beginning or a cause?

Settle down dude.

plaetton: Correction: The universe is not mutable. The universe is made of matter. We all know from primary school that matter cannot be destroyed or created. It can only change form.

Mutability does not refer to the capacity of a thing to be destroyed or created, it refers to the fact that it is changeable. As such, the bolded shows that indeed both matter and the universe are manifestly mutable.

Like I posted on a previous thread, the big b.ang was probably just an INFLECTION POINT in transition from pure energy to physical matter. It was not the beginning of existence of matter.

This is a fair statement and I find no disagreement with it. We should wonder what caused such an inflection though.

afam4eva: Do you mind throwing more light??

In most competitive endeavors some parts of the country really need to step up their contributions to the whole. And this says a lot about the fundamental Nigerian question.

jayriginal: One can also “logically and philosophically” discard the notion of a “oneness of infinity”. It is sufficient to do this simply by showing the origin. I begin thus;

1) First of all, the argument for the oneness of infinity is not clean. It is "dirty". ¹
2) It is said to have always existed but this is not true. It did come from somewhere as I shall irrefutably show.
3) When someone makes ridiculous claims, such a person is said to be talking bullsh[i]i[/i]t.
4) Since Deep Sight is not a bull ², it is enough to say he is talking sh[i]i[/i]t !
5) Now, [i]s[/i]hit is not immutable and therefore cannot be said to be self existent.
6) In fact, the basic law of cause and effect tells us that sh[i]i[/i]t is caused.
7) It is caused primarily by a need to get rid of waste products, usually from consumption. ³
8 ) “Deep Sight” has consumed a lot of philosophical and religious material. ⁴
9) Now if you revert to point number 4 above, the keen student of philosophy would have objected to the point. Human beings do not “talk” sh[i]i[/i]t. This may present a conundrum to the philosophically challenged but there is a resolution at hand.
10) We know that sh[i]i[/i]t exists, and therefore it must have an origin. Remember that it is not immutable.
11) We know where sh[i]i[/i]t originates from.
12) It is “Deep Sight” ‘s sh[i]i[/i]t.
13) We thus arrive at the irresistible logical and irrefutable philosophical conclusion that the oneness of infinity originated from the south end of “Deep Sight” ‘s alimentary canal.
14) “Deep Sight” on the other hand maintains that the oneness of infinity “aint [i]s[/i]hit” which only invalidates his stance. ⁵
15) Gbam ! Gboga!! Gbaga!!! ⁶







Footnotes:
-----------
¹ Dirty in this sense is not your everyday meaning. Rather it takes on a deeper and profound meaning that only keen students of philosophy can comprehend.
² Except perhaps to certain people.
³ Such as the oneness of infinity.
⁴ As he admits

⁵ This is a very fine point which only the logically adept can grasp.
⁶ These indicate the flawlessness of an argument. Only the exceptionally dense try to argue after these three words. The appropriate thing to do is bow the head reverentially and continuously mutter to yourself “ I am not worthy”.

You'd better be wary of ending up with the obsessive bitterness that some posters on this forum, such as Viaro, ended up having against me. These are open debates: getting all sensitive, obsessive, personal and bitter will do you no good.

Funny post though.

I hate to say this, but a keen examination of the ethnic demographic of that list is extremely telling about how unbalanced Nigeria is as a nation.

plaetton: Fianlly, I get you to agree that god must be intangible energy. We are making progress.
So energy must be god. That is the only way the notion of self existence and immutablity can be a bit palatable.
The physical universe, down to its basic component , is just intangible energy. e=mc2
So the universe is also energy(albeit compressed or dense energy)
[s]So, the universe, in its basic form, is also immutable and therefore self-existent.[/s] No: the universe is manifestly mutable and as such not self existent.
The very same same qualities you ascribe to god.

[s]So, the universe is god, or in the least,[/s]No: for same reason above.

a part of god. No, I will prefer to say: a result of God.
Do you agree with my deductive logic?

I have never disputed your first line. Maybe you haven't understood my position. Yes I agree with your deductive logic except the part I have modified in your quote in red.

plaetton: Except for energy , the rest are imaginary.

How so?

They are all every real, and you experience them. We all do.

Its is better to start with doubts with aim of arriving at certainty than to start with certainty and then end up with doubts.
That is the folly of most theists and creatonists.

I agree with this. I am not saying these things with conviction just spontaenously: I have spent the better part of my life since I was 12 years or so reflecting on them to the point of distraction. The same thirst took me through a labyrinth of religions and philosophies, and its been a long road - which never ends, of course but I can say with confidence I have found my conviction in the nature of what this reality is and I am entirely at home with it.