₦airaland Forum

^^^ David, at the minimum you can agree that a person who allegedly lays down his hife with full knowledge that he will take it up again in three days time is not quite the sacrifice. . . . . . of a life?

tobechi74: I AM SUPRISD, NO BODY MENTIOND LOGIC BOY---

WHAT? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Pastor Kun: ^^^
Even the theory of the expansion of the universe is very debatable as this theory is based on assumptions made from the point of view of astronomers based on earth. It is not based on a universal picture. The same way the sun appears to move from east to west whereas in reality it is stationary and it is the earth revolving round the sun.

Truth be told our knowledge of the cosmos is so infinitesimal that is almost impossible to make any definitive conclusion on a subject as remote as the origins or age of the universe.

The big bang fallacy is full of just too many untenable assumptions.

You make a good point, but there are demonstrable observations of galaxies moving away from one another.

Eratosthenes: It's a pity that the understanding of evolution by natural selection among the 'educated' folks in Nigeria is abysmally poor. Evolution is by far the most plausible naturalistic explanation for the existence of divergent forms of life on earth. The reason why most people are against evolution is essentially religious and not evidence-based. Science has proof without certainty whereas religion has certainty without proof. Scientific explanations for phenomena are constantly being modified as more and better evidence are available. But religious beliefs are immutable even in the face of glaring contradictory evidence. It is simply intellectual hypocrisy for creationists to ask for evidence in support of theory of evolution as no amount of evidence can convince a creationist.

Please read comments thoroughly before commenting. Some here do not dispute evolution (such as myself): we merely contend that there is more to that process than suggested by current science. See the comments on the success of unicellular organisms please.

PhysicsQED: By the way, why do you seem particularly interested in the speed of light being surpassed? I mean, why that particular limitation exactly?

Is it just because it's a talked about physical constraint? Because there are other more obvious constraints/limitations on our reality besides just that particular one and I wonder if you think those constraints will all eventually be broken as well.

. . . Which is?

The discussion has implications on the nature of time itself. I have severally contested that nature - as defined by science. The implication of a redefinition has significant bearing on the question of God's existence vis-a-vis theistic/ atheistic debates.

^^^ Thanks again for your comments, but I have expended a great deal of energy on this subject on this forum in the last two years. Before we proceed any further you need to confirm to me that you have read and absorbed Justcool's posts on this matter. They sum up my issues.

I refer to these ones in particular -

justcool: It will help people see that scientific terms are not exactly the same as the lay man’s terms. I have said this many times, that often scientific terms should not be viewed in the ordinary sense. Everybody knows what “time”; the “time” that Deep sight is talking about; the “time” that everybody intuitively knows, but very difficult to put in words. This “time” is what I refer as to “the real time” or “the lay man’s time” But when science talks about “time” they are not talking about the layman’s time or the real time.

Of course every rational person knows that the idea that time was born at the big slam is not possible in view of the real “time” or the lay man’s time. What science calls time is simply a dimension of motion, or a derivative of motion; a derivative of the speed of light to be more exact. Scientific time is referenced to the speed of light because at that time light was the fastest thing the scientist can conceive of.

Hence if anything moves at the speed of light, time becomes stand still in respect to that thing. Just as when two cars move at the same speed, they appear standing still to each other. And consequently, if anything can move beyond the speed of light, that thing will be time-traveling because it’s moving faster than time, i.e. moving backward in time.

The fact some things can move beyond the speed of light (a fact that I strongly believe that will soon be confirmed by science) will only show people that scientific time is different from real time. Because such particles, which can move faster than the speed of light, scientifically speaking, are moving backward in time. Imagine two cars “A” and “B” in motion, if car “A” speeds faster than the “B”, it will appear as if car “B” is moving backwards; judging from the motion frame of car “A”.

Real time, intuitive time, or the lay man’s time, I believe is what Deep sight has been talking about, which obviously cannot be born at the slam. This time, real time can be defined as the continuum onto which events happen. This time existed before the big slam, indeed the big bag is just an event that happened within it. Only that the big slam commenced the physical time or the scientific time which scientist reference with the speed of light.

People keep trying to marry scientific concepts with ordinary concepts. These ordinary concepts like “time”, “work” and etc. existed before modern science. Modern science only borrowed these terms to define scientific concepts.

Deep sight’s notion of time is right. He is talking about the real time, the lay man’s time. Posters are refuting his argument with the scientific concept of time which is only limited to the physical, i.e. the duration of physical events. This scientific concept of time is referenced to the speed of light because up till now “light” is the fastest physical phenomenon that science has observed. I will give an analogy: Deep sight is talking about motion in general, posters are refuting his argument by talking about the motion of a particular car. Of course just as motion is not limited to a particular car, time is not limited to this our particular universe. If there are other universes, their time frames will be different. And of course the motion of a particular car is born the minute the car started moving, yet the car itself is on earth which is in turn in motion; by the same token, the speed or duration of events (which science calls time) in our universe was born with the big slam; but even the big slam is an event which occurred in a lager time frame.

But I think every good scientist knows that the concept of time is not limited the scientific time. Science creates models that help them visualize and represent certain phenomena in numbers so that they can be solved mathematically to predict or give an idea of the behavior of the phenomena. It will be very misguided to expect that the phenomena itself is limited to numbers and scientific models. Certain phenomena in nature can never truly be captured on the blackboard or in a test tube. Real Time existed before the big slam will still exist afterwards.

Thanks.

And -

justcool: @ KAG

Thanks for addressing my post, you raised very fair points and I will address them accordingly.

You asked me to define what I mean by "real time," "lay man's time" or the "time" that deep sight is talking about. I offered a definition in my post. I wrote. “Time can be defined as the continuum onto which events happen.” This is the time that everybody knows; this is usually what people mean when they say “time.” And keep in mind that the word “time” existed before modern science. If you go back two thousand years ago and ask any man what “time” means he will not tell you that it is a dimension of motion. The idea of “time” being a dimension of motion is purely scientific, it is a scientific model.

Light was the fastest thing that scientists could conceive of at that time. I.e. at the time of Einstein. Perhaps I made a poor choice of words, and for this I apologize. What I meant was that light was the fastest thing that scientist could measure at that time, and hence could concieve of at that time. Or better, the speed of light was the fastest thing that scientist could measure at that time. And I said say it this way in my post:

This scientific concept of time is referenced to the speed of light because up till now “light” is the fastest physical phenomenon that science has observed.

The evidence I have on the idea that real time existed before the big slam lies in my definition of “Real time.” I defined “real time as the continuum onto which events happen. Since the big slam is an event and every event happen on or within time. Time must have existed onto which this event (the big slam) happened. This is only a logical speculation; even prominent scientists have made this speculation. The difficulty in proving this concept or experiencing the “real time” lies in the fact that while trapped within this time frame, its difficult impossible to experience the outside time frame at least with physical means.

You are right about electricity; the same is applicable to scientific terms like “time”, “work” and etc. It’s like the electric circuits that we draw and analyze. From the circuits we predict the behavior of electricity. But this circuit that we draw is only a model which may or may not correspond exactly to reality. To make problems easier to solve, in circuit analysis we invent things like Ideal voltage sources and ideal current sources; but in reality there is nothing like an ideal voltage or current source, because every source has its own internal resistance.  I’m using electricity for an example here because you seem to understand electricity. The point that I’m trying to make is that a lot of scientific terms are models which helps scientists predict and analyze reality, these models may or may not correspond exactly to reality.

The problem is that pseudo scientists try to force reality to conform to a scientific model; or restrict their perception of reality to the scientific model. This is the wrong way to use science. Real Scientists keep fine-tuning these models to correspond more and more to reality, and not otherwise.


And of course “real Time” has to be infinite, because there is no limitation to the amount or number of events that can happen. Time is infinite, those allowing an uncountable number of events to occur. This is really hard to put into words but II hope you perceive what I’m trying to put across. Real time stands still; it is infinite and endless. Events happen within it, it is the duration of this evens, i.e. the speed of these physical events that scientist call time. You see why the scientific time is limited, it’s limited to the duration of our particular universe; but real time has nothing to do with motion, motions happen within it, it simply has no beginning and it’s endless.

Thanks

And -

justcool: That's one way to look at it. The scientist is dealing with time within our universe, or within the physical realm. But the lay man perceives that the concept of time does not have to end within this particular universe or within the physical realm. Its like two people siting in a moving car; one is dealing with the motion of the car, while the other perceives that motion doesn't have to end with that particular car, and hence dealing with the motion of the entire earth around the sun.

One is confined to the motion of the car, because his instruments for detecting motion are incapable of detecting motion outside the car. While the other is able to detect, not only the motion of the car, but the motion of the entire earth. Another person may even be able to detect the motion of the entire solar system around the center of the universe. While another may be able to detect the motion of the entire universe around its axis.


Thus it is a question of perception or the range of perceptive ability. One speaking from the spiritual perspective deals with a larger frame of time than one speaking from the scientific perspective which is confined to the physical realm.

From Divine perspective, time (The real time) is infinite and stands still. Man as a spiritual being as the ability to vaguely perceive of this time that is infinite and stands still. This he can only perceive intuitively, a gross material  or intellectual perception of it is impossible. The brain can never conceive or perceive it.

Thanks

- - - Should give some perspective as to what I am on about.

Revert, thanks.

logicboy01: I already know that you're a quack scientist but I wonder who the doofus is that liked your comment

On science, I really don'y know what your qualifications are, but, at the risk of sounding as though I am appealing to authority, Davidylan is a scientific Phd holder.

Just so you know.

davidylan: I doubt thehomer is actually interested in the truth as espoused here. Like you said... if indeed unicellular organisms are that successful then what was the motivation for change?

Exactly.

thehomer: What do you think are these suppositions of the theory of evolution?
Why do you say that the multicellular organisms are less successful?



Do you know how long unicellular organisms were the dominant life-forms on earth? Take a look at this time-line. Natural selection is not a person that it should be satisfied. It is a process.
I think the confusion here lies in what you mean by success.

Please stop running around in silly circles. The logic in there is simple and iron cast: more successful species would not, by the principle of natural selection, evolve to less successful species. And please don't even be a toad by trying to play annoying definition games, cos we all know that in this respect, success refers to population and survival.

PhysicsQED: "If the speed of light is unbreakable, humanity may never explore the vast reaches of the universe?"

Why are you so sure of this?

First, this exploration does not have to happen in a short time. It can happen gradually over long periods of time and it's not clear or established that there isn't still a lot of time left in the universe. After huge technological breakthroughs (such as successful sustained generation of significant amounts of energy from fusion) of some sort (and these always seem to be happening), faster, longer lasting and stronger (materials science is advancing significantly in this regard - there are already sensors that can withstand very high temperatures and even stronger ones are yet to come) rockets and spaceships can be built, then floating colonies can be dispersed throughout the solar system (from which more rockets, ships, and colonies can be launched), then the galaxy, and then further and further out.

The rapidity with which this process of universal colonization/expansion is done will determine whether humanity can reach the boundaries of the universe before it ends. Remember that the universe is only expanding at around 70 km/sec (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html) so it's not moving faster than we are capable of moving (although it does seem to be accelerating, but there's no evidence at the present that the rate of expansion will even come close to the speed of light in a short time or anything).

Fair enough. Great proposition actually.

Second, there have been many tests on the speed of light that have not been seen to be flawed in any way, so you are right to say that experiments are still ongoing. It's just that they all point toward the same thing - no faster than light movement of any particles has been observed and confirmed.

Willy nilly, it will happen one day.

Third, after reading through this thread, I'm not sure if you really understand how time is defined by scientists.

Scientists have an illiterate and illogical definition of the word "time". They need to find another word to use, for what they seek to define is not time, but a dimension of movement. Fact.

Finally: I wonder if you have absorbed the theological relevance of this topic?

tbaba1234: It honestly takes a greater leap of faith to believe in the non-existence of God than to believe in the existence of one.

@deepsight

What are your beliefs?

Non-religious empirical and intuitive deist.

https://www.nairaland.com/404066/essentials-deism

[quote author=emöfine2]I agree. And if we are to follow this exaggerated claim it would be more specific to say he died only temporarily and even had foreknowledge of his alleged resurrection...so who knows if that had a part to play in his willingness to be allegedly sacrificed. However I question this type of redemption that needed centuries to spread all over the earth where even up until today there are some groups of people in rural places that are oblivious to this supposed urgent redemption.[/quote]Good questions!

logicboy01: Cheerleading without understnding the context.

Responding without understanding the innuendo. . . which, as Pastor Kun predicted, has escaped you!

I am not interested in the thread, but, here, to help you, read again, and see what I was laffin at - - -

Pastor Kun: I know calling someone an atheist is insultive though but I don't expect your vacant mind to realise that.

Pastor Kun: And how did the OP insult scientists? I know calling someone an atheist is insultive though but I don't expect your vacant mind to realise that.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

Nice one!

PhysicsQED: lol, is this a religious section or a philosophy section?

Anyway, the "faster than light" thing was a false alarm.

http://news.sky.com/story/928517/faster-than-light-or-just-a-faulty-cable

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635

http://www.voanews.com/content/leader-of-controversial-faster-than-light-physics-experiments-resigns-146020965/180601.html

If people here are really interested in relativity and cosmology, why not just study it directly? There are books out there. . .

At all events, we stated clearly in the OP that the results were not conclusive.

As such, the question within this thread remains - "what if?"

You may note that experiments are still going on in this regard.

If the speed of light is unbreakable, humanity may never explore the vast reaches of the universe.

It remains important in following these discussions to keep in focus that which we are asking here: namely the true nature of time and space and the relation of that question to theological discourses.

Once the possibility remains open, everything must be considered and reconsidered.

As far as I am concerned, time is not, and never has been, that which is scientifically defined. What is scientifically defined is not time at all: but a dimension of motion.

Justcool's first few posts on this thread refer.

thehomer: davidylan, what do you understand about the mechanisms of evolution? I ask because the question you just asked shows a deep misunderstanding of the theory. In fact, do you know that bacteria can be considered to be the most successful species on the planet? With some estimates saying that their biomass is more than that of plants and animals?

It is surprising that you never recognize what a devastating blow this very fact is to the theory of evolution's suppositions. I have pointed out to you once before the very fact you now mention: namely that unicellular organisms are the most successful living forms, and for this reason there ought to have been no evolutionary impetus towards less successful multi-cellular creatures as actually happened. This alone belies the whole of the theory of evolution: as conceived by scientists.

Now in saying this, note that I personally accept evolution: i just believe that there was a guided and deliberate intelligence behind the process, and not natural selection alone. For, as I have shown above, natural selection ought to have been satisfied with the earliest unicellular organisms alone: given their phenomenal success - and not contradictorily introduce less successful complex creatures.

Martian: Whatever it is, it is present in Freksies and monkeys and donkeys and dolphins and elephants and octopuses......and you know it

Aside, i should mention that this statement is frankly stu.pid.

Martian: Whatever it is, it is present in Freksies and monkeys and donkeys and dolphins and elephants and octopuses......and you know it

Lie to yourself. And you know it.

logicboy01: There is proof for evolution and electricity. Dont be a fool!

And the wonder of all that rests about you: even your very brain, and hands: is no proof of a supervening intelligence. Hmmmm.

Martian: apes are humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutangs and the newest genus, FREKSIES!

There is undeniably something in the human which is absent in every other animal known to this earth: and you know it.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]^^^ On the contrary, I am only asking you to clarify your point. There is nowhere I know of that an objective measure is based on a consensus of subjectives. We seem to agree on the necessity of an objective morality. What we don't agree on is the basis.

I claim that God, my basis for morality is objective i.e. unwavering and totally independent of personal sentiments.

You also claim an objective morality but you base it on subjective phenomena. this doesn't follow.

Since you are determined to deny God as a basis for morality, you are free to do so but whatever basis for good and evil you come up with must be strictly objective, invariable and totally independent of people's whims.[/quote]Excellently correct: otherwise the inter-subjectivity of aztec agreement on human sacrifice would render such right.

Afterall, in line with cyrexx's supposition on benefit to the society, the aztec believed that human sacrifice was of benefit to their society and even the world at large.

aletheia: Certain topics will always repeat. . .

From much earlier on NL:


Science believes what science believes, but the Word of Yahweh is sure, settled and established forever! Just a little thought on your part would have shown you that even your science agrees that light exists apart from and is distinct from the sun.

Thank you Aleth.

Sometimes it seems to me that depth of thought is only to be found amongst much older members of this forum. Sorry to say that though. Might come across bad. Just the way it seems. This thread has been piffled with nonsense until Aleth came along.

o, LET'S CARRY ON GIVING THE I.DIOT SANUSI MORE AWARDS!

Uncle Charles: I just stumbled on this thread and after spending hours reading,all I have to say is that I hope by now, Deepsight has managed to read the entire Grail Message, sequentially from the first to the last lecture. Also, I`m amazed at Just cool`s ability to keep up with such detailed responses not only considering how much energy he must have dispensed but also considering that all the answers lie in the Grail Message which is available to every enquirer. Cheers all.

Thank you for your input. I have indeed read the Grail Message a number of times as well as other related literature. Nevertheless (perhaps owing to my own deficiencies) I am not convinced that thoughts are matter - or any kind of matter, for that matter, no pun intended. I do not believe this even if it is expressly what the Grail Message teaches, and in that regard I am not sure that its teaching is not without some level of contradiction. Nevertheless I have bothered my dear and patient friend justcool too much on this issue and as such must leave it there: enlightenment will come to me when it will, if it will: but we are in accord and persuaded that knowledge of this matter will do nothing to take away or add to the salvation of any soul.

Shalom.

Plaetton has some of the most remarkable takes on Cosmic Energy . . . which, for him, is what "God" should be seen as -

plaetton: Energy ,in my view, energy transcends the physical. I think our three dimensional physical reality can be likened to just one channel or station in an infinite radio.
What we term 'spiritual' are just higher frequencies, octaves or dimensions of the same energy.

Again -

plaetton: Ok. First, there is no such thing as nothing. Energy is the all-pervading essence, and is either active or in potential. Active energy interacts with itself giving rise simple particles that later morph into complex particles and so on. energy and matter are interconvertible. E=MC2
The hand of a conscious being is not required for this to happen. Consciousness itself may likely be a by-product of energy interactions and not the primordal cause.
Therefore, there is only one entity, substance or force(whatever you want to call it), and that is pure energy. Everything else emanates from the ceaseless interactions of energy, including sentience and consciouness and awareness.

And yet again -

Plaetton: First, what do you mean by physical matter and energy. My definition of energy is not restricted to physical matter. Physical matter can be described as just one of the many states(or frequencies) of energy.
For me, pure electromagnetic energy has the attributes of self existence: It is intangile,immutable and all-pervasive. We can also cal it god or whatever else we like. The difference between us in this case is that you think that god is conscious,sentient and purposeful, whereas, I propose that all those are by-products of energy intereactions.

All brilliant and deeply thought-provoking. Can't say i'm fully on the same page, but to a large extent, i am.

Pastor AIO: Those words, Not all those who wander are lost, come the book, the Lord of the Rings.

I think it is used in reference to Aragorn/Strider who was a wanderer at first but turned out to be the prince of some land somewhere.

O, thanks very much for that piece of info: and at the risk of sounding like a broken record now, I will yet again encourage every theist: especially militant religious ones, to consider this fact in their "judgement" of atheists. As Jesus said, there will be those who say lord lord, and yet he knows them not, and there will be those who do not say such, and yet they will be acceptable unto the lord. . .

Indeed, not every one wandering is lost. . .

caezar: Permit me to interject (and I hope I am not being rude or presumptuous with my contributions)

Absolutely not sir, you are most welcome indeed.

. . .but I've been mulling over this for a while and I'm not entirely sure it is possible to show first cause within the constraints of physicalism.

What the current science give us to know at the minimum is that the universe began to expand from a point. That commencement of an expansion shall be sufficient for the present purposes.

Mr Idehn's current positions on space-time seem to make this even more difficult, if it were at all possible, because it leaves room for all sorts of claims like 'the universe is infinite and eternal' and 'all that we witness in the case of planet formations etc are nothing but conversions from energy to matter and matter back to energy'.

I hope to show that Mr. Idehn's suppositions on time and space are both scientifically and logically untenable. Indeed I believe I have done this already in post No. 2 and 3 above, but will be willing to show even more reasons therefore.

Therefore, any first cause that you argue would really be nothing more than a first state of the universe.

This is a fair comment, but as I said the mere fact that there commenced an expansion at some point, will be sufficient to ground the premises I intend to use.

"It is not everyone that is wandering that is lost".

Again, the foregoing, from KAG.

I wonder if he realized how profound these words are.

I also urge religious theists to reflect on these words in their condemnation of atheists.

In fact, i urge myself too, in that regard.

Pastor AIO: I can't be sure if you're a conscious being but I can only vouch for my own consciousness.

My point is that the most certain thing in existence is the least communicable thing. This therefore breaks the presumption that there must be a link between certainty and communicability or consensus of any sort.

Jesus Christ. Post of the Year 2012. In fact, post of the decade.

+ 10000

I don't know if it's down to atheism, but I'm a far more content person, more charitable. I've faced several fears and phobias I had, become, what I would like to think, a more rounded person.

It's not all beds and roses though, as I still battle with things like depression, but despite problems, there's an inner core of happiness within me, happiness that can never be touched nor harmed, happiness that I can only describe as "beautiful joy". there's also a feeling of being, and appreciation for a shortish life

KAG again. Poetic. Excellent.

KAG: There is a truism that has almost become cliche that applies here: "It is not everyone that is wandering that is lost". There's a sport I enjoy that involves simply running round an athletics track. You're not really going anywhere, just round and round, but for many experiencing the run is joy enough to justify what your position denies.

If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders.

From KAG. Brilliant.

Alrite, let's unwind with some fun. Reading some posts of my atheist friends on NL, I realized that notwithstanding our disagreements I am quite fond of some of them. To bridge the divide between atheists and theists on this board, lets play a little team building game: here goes: theists, mention your favourite atheists on NL and say nice things about them, and vice versa!

As a theist: I would mention my favourite atheists on this board:

1. KAG (on sabbatical), but for her very high intelligence and sarcasm

2. ToneyB ( - also on Sabbatical - Ever the briliant Professor)

3. Mazaje : For his exceptional honesty, decency, objectivity, and most importantly for his careful distinction between the existence of GOD and the existence of man made Gods

4. Plaetton: The most profound thinker I have ever met who called himself an atheist. I have told him that he is pantheist, though.

5. The Homer: Succinct and clear in all his arguments. Never unduly wordy. Masks behind soft rejoinders an aggressive and all-pervading intellect!

6. Idehn: Awfully bright guy and desperately pays attention to words and definitions: a tad frustrating, though.

7. Jayriginal: Fair minded and careful in distinctions. Very careful. I have a sneaky view though that he is more agnostic than atheist: though he himself asserts that there is no distinction.

8. And last but not the least, the ebullient, aggressive, terrible boy scout, and my greatest spar partner in recent times: MARTIAN! - For his sheer doggedness and refusal to respect what he considers Bulls*hit, no matter how elegantly written, and I do try!

PS: I would certainly have put purist at the top of my list, but I am not certain of what he is: he hates labels. Profound, and clear, is what I would call him.

I am going to church now, dont ask me why again, I am looking for something (won't tell you what) - so when am done, I will post some of my favorite posts made by these atheists which I consider brilliant or profound.

I will also, in quoting their great posts, seek to show them that inspite of our different views, I truly appreciate some of the great things that they say.