₦airaland Forum

Does the devil exist as conceived?

Of course, none other than the most noble creature on this planet -

jayriginal: Also, as I pointed out, saying something didn't need god is very different from saying god didn't do it.

Just how different, really? - When you consider the fact that a definitive phenomenon such as the big b@ng would likely have a definitive precursor in causality.

thehomer: To be sure that you're not just deceiving yourself.
What does God sound like? If you asked him how old I was, will he tell you?

This is really foolish. Grow up man.

Martian: F#cker has an hangover.

Let us please stop this embarrasing stupidity.

Martian: Wow!! I haven't seen hollywood get anybody this excited since Deepsight got some spiritual enlightenment from Avatar. Now, dear LogicBoy sees another hollywood epic and is now leaning towards the agnostic side. Calm down, it's just great CGI, the bible, erich von daniken and some hollywood screenwriters.

If you grew up in the 1970s, you may have a dim memory of “Chariots of the Gods,” an international best seller by Erich von Däniken full of dubious speculation about extraterrestrial influences on ancient earthling civilizations. The book, a kind of space age “Da Vinci Code,” inspired a goofy German documentary and, if memory serves, some earnest, anxious debates among sixth-grade protogeeks who shall remain nameless.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/movies/prometheus-by-ridley-scott-with-noomi-rapace.html

Mr Von Daniken was one of the subjects of an interesting discussion a few months ago. Don't get too excited.

Take me to your leader

logicboy01: On the other hand, you have been taking some haterade. Very disgusting drink, I might add.

O, shat ap there, will ya.

jayriginal: Our universe could have popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago without any divine help whatsoever, researchers say.

That may run counter to our instincts, which recoil at the thought of something coming from nothing. But we shouldn't necessarily trust our instincts, for they were honed to help us survive on the African savannah 150,000 years ago, not understand the inner workings of the universe.

Instead, scientists say, we should trust the laws of physics.

"The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

Filippenko spoke here Saturday (June 23) at the SETICon 2 conference, during a panel discussion called "Did the Big Bang Require a Divine Spark?" [Images: Peering Back to the Big Bang]

Quantum fluctuations In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say.

"Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos," said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."

"So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."

Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang — a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon — could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said.

"I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said.

The origin of the laws of physics If we're after the ultimate origin of everything, however, invoking the laws of physics doesn't quite do the trick. It may get us one step closer, but it doesn't take us all the way, Filippenko said.

"The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"

But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said.

The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve.

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

The History & Structure of the Universe (Infographic)The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy StepsThe Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)Copyright 2012 SPACE.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.The interior of Mars holds vast reservoirs of water, with some spots apparently as wet as Earth's innards, scientists say.

The finding upends previous studies, which had estimated that the Red Planet's internal water stores were scanty at best — something of a surprise, given that liquid water apparently flowed on the Martian surface long ago.

"It's been puzzling why previous estimates for the planet's interior have been so dry," co-author Erik Hauri of the Carnegie Institution of Washington said in a statement. "This new research makes sense and suggests that volcanoes may have been the primary vehicle for getting water to the surface."

The scientists examined two Martian meteorites that formed in the planet's mantle, the layer under the crust. These rocks landed on Earth about 2.5 million years ago, after being blasted off the Red Planet by a violent impact.

Using a technique called secondary ion mass spectrometry, the team determined that the mantle from which the meteorites derived contained between 70 and 300 parts per million (ppm) of water. Earth's mantle, for comparison, holds roughly 50 to 300 ppm water, researchers said.

"The results suggest that water was incorporated during the formation of Mars and that the planet was able to store water in its interior during the planet's differentiation," Hauri said.

Some of this water apparently made its made to the surface in the ancient past. NASA's Spirit and Opportunity rovers, which landed on the Red Planet in 2004, have found plenty of evidence that Mars was far warmer and wetter billions of years ago than it is today.

The two golf-cart-size robots have even spotted signs of ancient hydrothermal systems, suggesting that some places on the Red Planet once had both water and an energy source — two key ingredients for the existence of life as we know it.

While the new results should help scientists better understand Mars and its history, they could also shed light on the evolution of large, rocky bodies in a more general sense, researchers said.

"Not only does this study explain how Mars got its water, it provides a mechanism for hydrogen storage in all the terrestrial planets at the time of their formation," lead author Francis McCubbin of the University of New Mexico said in a statement.

The study was published in the journal Geology on June 15.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47948831/ns/technology_and_science-space/

PS: I am posting from my phone. I may edit later.

I see you have not been taking your medication.

Purist: I meant self-interest, but I see your point anyway.

Let me just add that even where it is argued that doing good makes us feel good with ourselves, there is obviously a reason whay we would feel good about good acts, and such a feeling does not take away from the goodness of the act but is a necessary by-product because we recognize the act to be good.

To demonstrate: we would similarly feel bad about a bad act: because we recognize the act to be bad and such a feeling does not detract from the badness of the act. If this is the case then we can similarly say that feeling good about a good act does not detract from the goodness of the act.

O, that's nothing at all, in fact it hasn't even started, what about this -

Missing so many chances is never a good omen . . . .

991: Our Brain/Mind is God. it 'll be interesting to see how anyone can prove its not!

Interesting take. But in the same way it can be said that our brain/ mind is everything - the world, the universe, et al. It will be interesting to see how anyone can prove that it is not.

Deep Sight: It appears that the issues are as follows.

Section 89 (1)(c) empowers the House to summon any person in Nigeria for the purpose of any investigation on any matter within the purview of the house.

This ordinarily suggests that the House can summon even the President.

However the contention arises from Sectioon 308(1)(c) which prohibits the establishment of any process of court in terms of a warrant against the person of the President as part of his constitutionally guaranteed immunity.

The problem is that people are reading Section 308 wrongly. Section 308 applies to court processes. The House is not a court of law. Accordingly the house has authourity to summon the President.

Further to the above I post the full text of section 308. It is obvious that there is nothing therein that circumscribes the House's powers under Section 89.

[b]308. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this section -

(a) no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office;

(b) a person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and

(c) no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued:

Provided that in ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this section applies, no account shall be taken of his period of office.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party.

(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to "period of office" is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office.[/b]

Kobojunkie: [size=18pt]NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION -->[/size] http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm


[size=14pt]What section in the Nigerian constitution do you extract your claim that NASS cannot summon the president of Nigeria.
[/size]

It appears that the issues are as follows.

Section 89 (1)(c) empowers the House to summon any person in Nigeria for the purpose of any investigation on any matter within the purview of the house.

This ordinarily suggests that the House can summon even the President.

However the contention arises from Sectioon 308(1)(c) which prohibits the establishment of any process of court in terms of a warrant against the person of the President as part of his constitutionally guaranteed immunity.

The problem is that people are reading Section 308 wrongly. Section 308 applies to court processes. The House is not a court of law. Accordingly the house has authourity to summon the President.

Martian: Then you used it to give purpose to the apparent nihilism of life

Do you think life is inherently purposeless?

No worries, Mr. Idehn, I can certainly wait. Afterall, these matters have been disputed centuries before you and I were born and will still be disputed centuries after we are dead.

Cheers.

Very topical in light of recent discourses with Idehn. Had altogether forgotten this thread!

^^^ No, please see the bolded in red: that is where they defined it and that definition refers for the other instances of the usage of the word -

a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

In spite of infinitude there are certain practices that are found in almost all religions. ie. Sacrifices, fasting, prayer etc etc etc. It is possible to draw general lines around what religions involve.

These examples do not qualify many religions.

I have a funny feeling that Enigma won't turn up here, in fact he'll avoid it like the plague.

Oh, its way beneath his excellency, you know.

Pastor AIO: For a number of reasons. It does not tell us anything about defining PRACTICES of religion. I am keen to know what practices religions have in common and why they practice them, and also where and how they differ.

That is impossible because there are almost infinite practices and infinite differences. Don't let Enigma catch you there.

Secondly, the dictionary is defining religion in a loop.

Ques: What is a religion?

Ans: A religion is something that deals with religious things.

Any definition of religion that needs to use the word 'religious' is a poor definition.

No, because in def. 1 it gave a def without using the word "religion" so that when the word is used in subsequent defs, then you can refer to def 1 for what the word means.

Thirdly, . . . . hmmmm . . there was a thirdly but it has escaped my mind. I'll be back . . .

Give it up mate. . . . we CAN and should stick with the dictionary otherwise pandora, pandemonium, panplxsionz

Why dont we just stick with the dictionary -

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1

a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic: scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Now, if Enigma or Uyi will use (3) or (4) to justify their position, then there is honestly a severe case to reform primary and secondary ENGLISH LANGUAGE USAGE education in this country and elsewhere.

Why dont we just stick with the dictionary -

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1

a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic: scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Oh? That may be the third time you have posted that, but perhaps it has escaped you that it has been posted a thousand times that neither Kauffman nor the Supreme Court are authourities on whether atheism is in fact [/i]a religion - as opposed to [i]in legal interpretation on fundamental rights.

Pastor AIO: So a guy claims that his religion, Atheism, is being restricted. Is this guy the authority to what is or is not a religion?

No, the guy is not an authourity: and I will go so far as to say that neither is the Supreme Court - save of course, to the extent that it defines it for legal purposes to protect legal freedoms of everyone.

^^^ Completely? or partially?

BTW, We never caught up! Hit me an email!

I hear rumours the 3rd Mainland Bridge will be closed for four months. Please can anyone with accurate information post here.

Enigma: ^^ Amen!

I'm sure Kay17 will be back at some point; at least that is one person who has genuinely tried to engage.

Given the antecedents of this poster as to "bothering to respond" or not, I just have to chuckle at this one.

While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big slam, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms.

On time -

1. The event called the big ban.g and the exopansion and progression therefrom are sufficient enough to evince a timeline as well. Indeed I am certain that no other scientist other than Mr. Idehn would make this patently self-contradictory claim that time did not exist and only began to exist as a figment of the imagination of creatures. Whatever else may be said, that is not what the science says.

2. Now take a close look at the extract above. You may have noticed it in the extract from my second post. Please take a look at the bolded parts. While these indicate a human method of measuring time, the implication is clear that a progression of time or timeline already existed from the big ban.g. It is thus untenable for Mr. Idehn to claim that neither time nor space exist outside the human mind or the mind of creatures. Creatures did not exist at the time referred to in the extract.

3. Really the poser normally should be a non-starter. We should ask Mr. Idehn very specifically this question -

- - - DID THERE EXIST ANY SPACE BETQWEEN THE SUN AND THE PLANET URANUS BEFORE LIFE EVOLVED ON EARTH?

- If yes, then space does not exist only in the mind of creatures

- If no, then neither the sun nor uranus exist, or are one and the same, undifferentiated.

The Big Ba.ng.

Extract from wiki-page on the Big Ban.g.

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago,[2][3] which is thus considered the age of the Universe.[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

POINT NUMBER ONE: The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model."[6]

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

Now as I go along, I will flag certain pieces of information the the way I have flagged "Point Number One" above. At the end of the thread, these flagged points will serve as my overall summary.

I flag the above because it is critical in that which I wish to put on the table - especially given that we are discussing with persons who claim to abide by and with science. We should thus aim to be as scientific as possible.

From the foregoing, we can see that -

1. The Big Ba.ng is indeed a well tested theory and from all observation of the universe thus far, is credible especially in light of the observed expansion of the universe.

2. The expansion we are speaking of commenced approximately 13.7 billion years ago. As such, the universe began to expandp at a time when there were no humans and no creatures within it, to conceive of a concept of space,

3. As such, there was space before the earth, humans or any creatures developed.

4. Any contention that there wasn't, would mean that the Big Ban.g could not have, or did not, occur.

5. As the diagram below shows -

@ Idehn,

Here is the new thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time#11185834

Following from this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/817389/atheism-no-god-religion/8#11124875

My good friend Mr. Idehn had made the following exasperating contentions -

1. That there is as yet no plausible definition of the word "God" as to permit any discussion on whether or not God exists.

2. That the only things that may be considered as being existent things which we know of, are physical things.

3. That as such, as far as we know, God does not exist..

4. That time and space themselves exist only in the human mind and do not exist in and of themselves.

We had alot of trouble getting off the first point: namely Mr. Idehn's contention that there is no plausible (clear and coherent) definition of the word "God" as to permit any discussion into whether or not such exists. After much trouble, we agreed to accept the following definition for the purpose of this thread:

"God" - "A being said to have created the universe ex deo."

Creatio ex deo is a scenario whereby God is said to have created the universe from the substance of God's own being. This is as opposed to the scenarios of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and creatio ex materia (creation out of some other previously existing eternal substance).

Given that the universe is physical, Mr. Idehn has concluded that God under this definition (ex deo) must perforce be physical. I had pointed out to Mr. Idehn earlier that creatio ex deo does not necessarily infer that God is physical - it could for example mean that God had caused elements radiating from its eternal substance to become physical - nevertheless as any conception of anything non-physical is not acceptable to Mr. Idehn, I conceded, within the other thread, that only for the purpose of this discussion - I leave God as being physical.

I make this concesion to advance the discussion for the following reasons -

(a). It is not material to my argument

(b). My argument centres on the universe being caused by a pre existent force/ entity/ intelligence

(c). As such, the question of physical or non-physical does not matter for this specific thread - although I personally do not believe God to be physical.

Now, if, and only if we succeed herein in showing the necessary existence of a pre-existent entity necessary as having created this universe, then and only perhaps then can we return to the question of physical or non-physical[/b]. I should add though, that this may be unnecessary, and I should also add that it is a pipe dream on a sunny afternoon for me to think that Idehn will ever accede to such anyway, or agree to the existence of a pre-existent cause at all.

Having made room permitting us to scale the problems of Iden's contentions (1) - (3) above, it is my intention to argue the existence of God based on the premise of the Big B[i]a[/i]ng. However I encounter another problem here because Idehn claims that time and space infact do not exist, and that these are only ideas within our minds. Inherently, I believe that this is an absurd notion because without time and space there would have been no universe in the first place - and of course the universe predates all living things including us, and even the whole earth.

Such is the nature of difficult and i believe - radically unreasonable and unscientific contentions which Mr. Idehn has set up, that it is a marvel that we can discuss at all. Nevertheless, lets give it a shot. We will therefore be compelled to start from the otherwise absurd position of having to show that time and space exist at all, before we proceed.

So let's start with the Big B.[i]a[/i]ng.

Idehn: I hope you actually mean this and not simply as a means to avoid the epistemological/ontological problems that arise from positing a non-physical being. But if you agree then I agree.

I mean it as a working definition that we can agree on for the purpose of deciphering if a pre-existent being/ intelligence caused the universe to be.

Not sure about this one. This rule would apply a certain level fetishism to the dictionary. The dictionary can be vague,ambiguous, incoherent, contradictory, subject to interpretation and even incorrect too. It would be very much like Christians who settle there disputes using the bible. It may be an independent source, but I for one would rather they reasoned through the dispute rather than simply consulting the bible for example on matters of ethics, history, or science.

Fair enough, but let us agree that if there is extended dispute on the meanings of words, recourse will be had to the dictionary.

The problem is It is like my vector examples. While the concepts are meaningful and useful , "vectors", "numbers", "time", and "space" cannot be said to exist in and of themselves. It is like adjectives in language. They are used to describe nouns(the Universe) but are not meaningful by themselves. For example saying "the really big rolled down the hill." is not a meaningful sentence". You are naturally still left asking what is it? While "really big" is used/useful for describing things, "really big" is not a thing in and of itself. Or if I say

I have four.
The four meter long was cut in in half.
Took four hours.

Even though those statements make use of numbers/space/time you are still left asking what? Naturally, this is because "four", "four meters", and "four hours" does not mean anything/exist in and of themselves. They are used to describe physical things. I do not believe this takes away from their utility/meaningfulness.

I see your problem. As regards time and space, we will take it up within the new thread I will create. It will be the first issue.

I am off to create the thread.