₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You can use synonyms to mock all you want, I believe that Idehn and Kay 17 both know that by immaterial, I mean not consisting of physical matter and that is what is important.
Come back when you grow up.[/quote]Don't make any assumptions. Idehn might tell you that the word "immaterial" has no definition.

@ Idehn -

I am really tired of the long discussions eternally heading no where with endless word definition games. The fact of the matter is that if someone expresses a concept and defines it, you should proceed to discuss if such exists instead of attempting to redefine the concept for the person. If i say that fairies exist, you should debate their existence, instead of challenging the definition of the word "fairy." That really is not only beside the point, but as I have repeatedly said, exceedingly tiresome.

I really dont understand how you could make such a hash of things. The Theist asserts that the universe was created by a Creator-Being. The Atheist denies this. The discussion should be on the logic of the matter and not an endless attempt to insist that there is no definition of the word "creator". That is a very bizzare way to argue, aside from being obviously false. You cannot honestly claim that there is anything nmysterious about the words "A being said to be the creator of the universe."

Please simply let me know if you will be ready to proceed to the meat of the matter based on the definition of the concept of God as - A being said to have created the universe ex deo."

Whistlle. . .

jayriginal: One more thing Purist, you are an atheist as long as you do not believe. It wouldnt matter if you called yourself an agnostic. Its just a fancy term for someone who has not realized he/she is an atheist.

Oh no please, the distinction is quite real.

Purist: To be honest, I have no real answer to this question. Considering the fact that words are being constantly defined and redefined nowadays, it is really difficult to apply any theological/philosophical labels to myself (I consider such labels to be highly unnecessary actually, especially as identifying with a particular label would make people have stereotypical views of you).

My answer to that question would depend on what you mean by "atheist". In the broadest sense of the word - non-belief in deities - I would say, yes, I am. But do I think that there could possibly be a god somewhere? I do entertain that thought from time to time and have never for once ruled it out, even though as I am constantly gaining more knowledge, I am beginning to think that it is highly unlikely. Based on this, I mostly consider myself to be agnostic -- an agnostic with largely atheistic tendencies, you know, like an Agnostic Atheist of some sort (although I still think that label does not paint a true picture of my actual position). However, I find myself expressing Ignostic views more often than not. More appropriately though, I think the generic word "Skeptic", suits me better.

But even if somehow, it can be proven that there is a god or gods, do I think it is the Christian/Muslim/AnyOtherReligion God? Certainly NOT! For that, I am fairly certain. The Deist God then? Perhaps. But even then, a belief or disbelief in it would change nothing. It would make no difference, as there are no consequences or rewards for believing or disbelieving in it. See, my position is not a stagnant one; it's not definitive. I am constantly adjusting my views as I gain new insights and new knowledge and as I deem fit. Who knows, I may eventually become a full-fledged atheist some day, or an "evangelical" deist like yourself, but I very much doubt that I will ever be a theist again. Nigeria would probably transform into Utopia first before that would ever happen.

To be honest, I could really care less about whether there is a deity or not, and would barely attempt to even convince anyone about its non-existence. I guess that would make me an implicit atheist then or simply a non-theist, which I feel is the most appropriate (you see, there are many labels that could be applied to me, depending on how you see me). I have so many people around me - including friends - that have not the slightest clue that I am irreligious, and that's because I barely talk about my stance in real life. As a matter of fact, people always instinctively assume that I am a Christian for reasons best known to them, even though they are fully aware that I don't go to church. (Many do in fact often tell of how they find my knowledge of the bible so impressive for a non-church goer.)

Now, when people begin to act based on what they think their God wants, and such actions affect me in some way, then it begins to appear like I actually care about the existence of this deity. When governments begin to make laws that border on theocracy, or people begin to form opinions and make decisions that affect me directly or indirectly, based on their religious convictions (which they always do) - and which I must mention, are NEVER objective - then I begin to take serious offense in these things. Just yesterday, I read that a Jehovah's Witnesses couple were forced by a court in the US to allow their almost-dying daughter have a blood transfusion in order to save her life. These parents genuinely believe that their God would be so pissed should they allow the transfusion. This is just one of countless sick stories you hear and read about on a daily basis.

I do think that it is possible for there to be a god. But I do not think that such a god would be so concerned to bother itself about what we eat, drink or wear, whether we talk to him constantly, thank/praise him for everything, who we choose to marry, who we choose to have s[i]e[/i]x with - including when and how we do it, how we address him, etc. In short, the only type of god I believe there could possibly be would be an impersonal God, which even barely makes sense to me. The gods of the monotheistic religions are so ridiculous that the existence of any one of them is highly improbable. The Christian/Muslim/etc God who has a reputation for being so whimsical and totalitarian could very well decide to change his mind at the last minute and allow only atheists into heaven, and would do so with impunity. After all, "his ways are not our ways."

Brilliantly written. Could not disagree with a single word up there. Luffly!

[size=4pt]But something niggles me. Do you think you will ever disclose to us the identity of the former christian incarnation on NL which you have often alluded to?[/size]

^^^ The whole of the above is very well said indeed and resonates strongly with me.

Particularly -

Pastor AIO: When any sort of criticism is viewed as an attack rather than an opportunity to grow then such a person's position is very precarious indeed.

I really think that this is something that our friend really needs to take to heart.

Martian: Well, you will and when you do, it will be still be based on your particular biases. The generic definition is well known, so stop hiding behind that. Apart from that vague definition, anyone who attempts to explain god based on their own biases will end up with "unembodied brains minds" and the likes.

Might I specifically ask you what your problem is with the term "unembodied mind"?

I believe it is your view that minds can only exist within the context of a physical brain, yes?

Now what does the physical brain consist of, my dear friend? Is it not an agglomeration of infinitesimal microscopic cells, neurons, synapses etc?

If this is the case, then it must be agreed, at least on a conceptual level, that we can conceive of a mind being "bodied" within the smallest conceivable, even invisible element, no?

iF SO, why can there not - conceptually - exist a mind that is "bodied" across all the microscopic elements trans-universe.

It is afterall already known that minds can interact in waves.

That would be an unembodied mind to the extent that it is not "bodied" in one single definite creature, no?

Let's start with this. . . . ?

Martian: Everyone knows that god is said to be the creator of the universe and what not

Really? Mr. Idehn could have had me thinking that everyone does not know that this is what God is said to be . . . or that there is confusion or ambiguity about whether or not that is the notion of God that people generally have. . .

but what you refuse to understand is that, once the theist is asked to expatiate, the already flimsy concept of god is shown to be irrational e.g "unembodied mind", "eternal conciousness", "extraphysical that can't be explained", "oneness of infinity", "spirit", "non physical", "inherent existence","supernatural", etc etc so the weary atheists just yawn.

Funnily enough, we are not even discussing the "expatiation" as yet. . . we are still grappling to define the word to be discussed. . . .

Idehn: Once again another vacuous retort without a single counter argument.

Yes I did indicate that I PREFER not to argue that issue here as it is not the topic. It would severly derail our already difficult discussion. If you don't mind, i could set up a thread specifically for it and we take it slowly there.

Your notion that time and space exist only in the mind is patently unscientific and indeed illogical.

If you confirm you are willing, I shall open a thread to address this.

Coming from someone who subscribes to ancient aliens and oneness of infinity I am not at all moved.

You really need to stop these ad hominems. The fact that I may beleive in Santa Claus will not make me wrong if reject your claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

By the way, I opened a thread to examine the possibility of ancient extra-terrestial activity. I don't see anything insultable in so doing. Nor do i see same in a belief in the source of all existence being ONE AND ETERNAL. Because that is the summary of the one and the infinite. It rebounds on you all who continually behave like the term is something inherently ridiculous or novel. And it is worse to continuously have to hold that as some sort of trump card for abuse. Grow up man!

If you want to know the greatest piece of illogic and absurdity than reread the above. Seriously, after reading this I am actually embarrassed for you. How can you define something using the word Universe, and then turn around and say that the definition has nothing to do with energy, matter, and the physical? Either you have no idea what the Universe is composed of, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I can only hope it is the latter. It is like you are trying to define a word, while ignoring the meaning of the words you are defining it with. You may as well have defined the word computers, and complained that the definition has nothing to do with silicon or electricity and even that is being generous.

Well the misunderstanding here will rest in your analogy. God is not said by the theist to be composed of the universe, like in your computer example. That is the preserve of the pantheist. God is said to be the creator of the universe. As such, instead of being embarrased for me, you need to settle down and be keen enough to recognise that the definition gave is about the creator of the computer, (using your computer example) and NOT a definition of the computer itself. This will be like saying that every definition of the man Idehn must include a narrative of the specific physical nature of all the things he has invented.

As such, still staying with your example, let us say, as a crude analogy, that Bill Gates creates a computer. Someone is now trying to identify Bill Gates to another person. He says - Bill Gates is the man who created the Computer.

Tell me, Mr. Idehn, will we now have to resort to the components of the computer such as micro-chips, silicon and what have you, in describing WHAT the human-being Bill Gates is? ? ? ? Absolutely not: because Bill Gates is not Silicon, in the same way as the Theist does not say God is the Universe. It is the Pantheist that says that.

The Universe is all that we see, and with reference to the commencement of a discussion on the existence of God, we simply say to you as a definition only and not as proof - that we speak of a being said to have created the Universe. We do not seek to describe the components of the universe, at least, not as yet: we seek to assert that the universe was created by a pre-existent: in proof, we may discuss, but in definition only, this stands.

I hope this is clear for you now.

This is why I asked those questions. I have heard the teleological argument already and the subset arguments. Your definition stated and assumes that the Universe was created. The fact that you presented three interpretations of "creating a Universe" telling and why I asked for clarification. Which one do mean and are you going to throw verbose tantrums every time I ask for a clarification?

Again you present multiple interpretations for "creating the Universe", and turn around complaining about me asking for clarification? Are you for real?

This is what I have been trying to ascertain before you went on with your ravings.

I do not think the rest of your rant is even worth acknowledging much less responding to so I will leave it at this. Which one do you mean when you say creator of the Universe? Ex Nihilo/Deo/materia. I swear, answering is a lot easier and faster than long winded rants. Honestly, you are making this a lot more painful, not to mention superfluous, than it has to be.

In fact I will say this. We can proceed to the discussion of existence if you are using the Ex deo(since it is actually physical definition).

Thank you for this. I would agree with proceeding with creatio ex deo. But I should at the outset warn that it is not necessarily as you have stated a "physical" definition. But that is too far up the ladder. I will be muddying things up if I go there now, and knowing you, i wouldn't want that to take us another year to define. Infact, forget I said it. Let's leave that for now.

I give reasons for going with creatio ex deo.

- I do not believe in creatio ex nihilo because in my definition of nothingness, nothingness being nothing, does not exist at all

- I do not believe in creatio ex materia because I do not regard matter as eternal in the past, it not bearing the qualities of self-existent things. (Although I should carefully note that ex materia does not necessarily refer to matter but generally to any eternally existing substance.)

So, Mr. Idehn, are we finally at a consensus that we can now discuss the existence or non-existence of God based on this definition of God -

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

Confirm please. Thanks.

Hahahahaha! Abeg free me on that Plasotle thing jaare. Joke gone bad, much to the delight of Enigma. Chei, if only I had got it right, what a great laugh i wud have had.

But seriously, the point being made is as simple as saying -

- Why should people enjoy liberties such as free speech and seek to deny others same?

- Why should people be able to build their places of worship in other countries and prevent foreigners from doing same in their country?

- Why should people collect taxes from haram businesses such as the sale of alcohol and prevent the sale of same within their own domains?

- Why should people enjoy the freedom to practice their religion and yet declare that others cannot leave same religion save under pain of death?

- Why should people be able to criticize other faiths freely in the general section, but have official protection from being criticized in their section? What exclusivity is that?

Which kain sense be that, yoooo, na animal sense.

And to prove the point: watch out: this post of mine will most likely be deleted.

Mind you, I said nothing about the guillontine, although same religion readily chops off heads and what have you.

Allahu Akbar. This is haram.

Pastor AIO: I would ask you to lead I not into temptation but to deliver I from Evil (by calling me up on it whenever you see me sliding down the slippery slope).
I and I should be able to do this for I so that I and I can continue to grow in righteousness. Or is it I-ighteousness.

LOLZ!

Pastor AIO: Guilty as Charged. I have been gleeful and now I am appalled. I don't think I swing that often though. Anyhow, this (change of attitude) is really a matter between myself and my conscience and not between my and anybody else.

Of course, of course, I was just heckling una.

Can you authourize me to from time to time test you in this regard by being terribly obnoxious in my posts?

That way, Daniel-son, ye shall learn patience and fortitude. . . . .

As a synopsis of the foregoing post:

- Mr. Idehn generally states that there is no way to discuss God because there is no definition of the word "God" that one can work with

- I say that this is wrong. I give a simple definition as "A being said to be the Creator of the Universe"

- Mr. Idehn reverts inferring that if such a being did not create ex nihilo, then such a being is not creator.

- I say that all scenarios of creation - ex nihilo, ex materia and ex deo - are all instances of creation, and as such, none of the scenarios is sufficient to state that a being who formed the universe in any of the three scenarios, is not a creator. Merriam Webster agrees with me on this.

So there, Mr. Idehn. Is the definition provided not one that we can proceed to discuss - as to whether such a being exists or not?

Or we cannot discuss at all?

PS: If you will quibble further, I will be happy to qualify the definition further to suit your peculiar idiosyncracies. Until we get to the point where you admit the obvious. Namely that definitions exist, and pedantic debaters also exist - you are being one, sir.

Na wah.

Fr0sbel: Yoga is a Hindu science that claims to teach people how to unite their soul with the "Supreme Soul", and merge their will with the "Cosmic Will".

The practice of yoga has three main components:
1) The physical exercise component,
2) The mental meditation component, and
3) The verbal chanting component.
These three are combined to make yoga what it is.

Let us think of these three separately.

1) There is nothing inherently holy or evil about the physical exercise component by itself. If someone stretches his leg in a certain way, that is neither holy nor evil. None of the physical stretching exercises in yoga need be connected with any religion. So we can do any exercise freely, even if it was a Hindu (or a Muslim, or a Buddhist) who first taught it. A typical yoga lesson does not emphasize the spiritual connection initially. So when people hear that some Christians are opposed to the practice of yoga, they wonder why. The reason is that the more advanced you get into yoga, the more you are going to move towards the ultimate purpose behind these exercises. So while breathing exercises may appear to be innocent initially, even these could be initial stepping stones that have its overall aim as "merging the individual will with the Cosmic Will."


2) [/b]When it comes to the mental meditation component, we have to be careful. Yoga typically teaches people to empty their minds of all thoughts and then to meditate. That is wrong for a Christian. The Bible tells us to meditate on God's Word at all times. We must FILL our minds with God's Word - meditating especially on the verses that tell us how much God loves us (e.g. Psalm 139:17-18, Isaiah 49:15-16, Jeremiah 29:11, etc).

[b]3) The verbal chanting component is what we must avoid altogether. Yoga typically teaches people to keep chanting the word "Om" - a syllable that is supposed to be the highest manifestation of God-consciousness in Hinduism. The invoking of Om to relax is much more than a blind chant of some random syllable. It is an opening of the mind to other spirits. As Christians, we must never seek to achieve any sort of relaxation by such chants. We do not even chant the Name of Jesus, because that Name is not a 'mantra' - and our Lord specifically forbade us from using meaningless repetitions in prayer. The Lord gives us rest in our minds through the Holy Spirit and not by chanting.

If we find that we can meditate on the Lord and be at rest in our spirits, while doing the physical exercises in yoga, then we can continue doing them. But if at any time, we find any uneasiness in our spirits, then we should avoid doing them. There are many forms of exercise, other than yoga, that Christians can engage in, to keep physically fit. We can know the mind of the Spirit in all matters by peace in our hearts (Rom.8:6 )

http://www.cfcindia.com/web/mainpages/articles.php?display=article41

This is the height of foolishness.

Oh yuck. Having descended into the pit, let no man seek perfumery.

Pastor AIO: Yes I engaged in these not too long ago, but now it appalls me.

It seems you swing between being appalled at such and gleeful at such as often as there are mosquito bites in the tropical rain forest.

Enigma: . . . and 'deal with each poster according to your reasonable perception of their attitude'.

. . . or according to the level of malicious pent-up hatred and bitterness you have for the poster.

Poster boys for good conduct!

musKeeto: Remember Seun is not afforded the anonymity most Nlanders abuse on this forum. I heard he got threats from some Muslim posters hence a separate section was created for them. The rest of us have to live with that..

You didnt read carefully. My comment was not centred on the existence of an Islam section but on the fact that any post therein which expreses a different view is deleted and poster banned. That is worse than fascism.

In all sincerity, it is a shameful and hypocritical contradiction to have an Islamic Section on an ONLINE PUBLIC FORUM which then is closed to free open commentary. Tell me, how does that make sense. If comments are deleted or people banned regarding the Islam section, it should be on account of vulgar abuse and the like - and NEVER for simply expressing a contrary view.

Any person who bans posters or deletes their comments only because such comments are contrary to the teachings of Islam, simply has no business on a public forum!

Such a person is also not fit to live in a democracy.

Idehn: I am distinguishing our perceptions/conceptions from the thing that is being perceived. The problem is that not all conceptions are of things that actually exist. Mathematical concepts such as vectors are prime examples of this. The mind is entirely composed the physical brain. The human mind is defined in its entirety by the sum total of object/processes that occur in physical nervous system the primary component being the human brain. I am not going to say minds cannot exist without physical bodies but I do know of any human that has encountered one. If you know such a mind then you should present it to the world. Moreover, if you are saying that time and space are not physical, you cannot turn around and define them entirely in terms of the physical. An thing that is not physical cannot be defined physically. You cannot have it both ways.

This does not address that which i stated. I stated that time and space do not exist only in the human mind. I find your assertion to the contrary to be one of the greatest pieces of illogic and absurdity that I have ever read on this forum or indeed anywhere in the world. It is a piece of illogic that deletes the universe and you and I from reality. It far exceeds any statement made by my all time champions of illogic on this forum. Nevertheless we leave this as it is not the topic. Another day, another thread.

I think this is a good example of what I was talking. I suspect that underlying this definition is a gross form of equivocation. I see this definition thrown about like Universes are just assembled in the back of Universe factories. So I will focus on this before addressing anything else.

Do you consider an ipad a physical object?

Do you consider a the act of creating a physical object such as an ipad a physical or non physical action?

Do you require a physical body to create an ipad?

Do you agree that when you create something like an ipad requires physical objects such as matter and energy to create it?

What if I were hypothetically to say I created the Universe. From a cause and effect stand point would you say that the effect is that the Universe went from a state of physical non existence to a state of physical existence?

I think this sort of response more than justifies everything I complained about regarding you and definition games. It does not get any worse than this, and I am satisfied that the objective reader can now see what I complained of. This is terrible.

There is nothing you have written there that has anything to do with the definition i proffered to you. The definition said nothing about physical or non-physical. It said nothing about matter or energy or the presence or lack of either. It was bare and simple. I very deliberately left out tangible or intangible, created or uncreated, spiritual or physical, ex-nihilo or ex-materia. I gave it s simple as it gets and you revert with this. . . i dont know what to call it.

The summary of what you have raised is the question of creatio ex-nihilo.

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

With respect sir, I say to you that this has nothing as yet to do with the bare definition which I proffered to you.

This just shows how far ahead you wish to jump in your desperation to reject any definition of the very words "God" or "creation" - even just as definitions. For as must surely have been obvious, both creatio ex-nihilo and creatio ex-materia are further constructs which do nothing to tamper with the very basic definition I tossed up for your comfort. Neither precept impacts on that very simple definition. And if you had been a keen reader, you would have seen that even the bare dictionary definition of "creator" which i gave you already touched on these.

Creatio ex-nihilo refers to creation out of nothing whilst creatio ex-materia refers to creation out of some previously existing eternal substance. There is also the precept of creatio ex-deo which refers to creation from God's own substance. It is an entire area of philosophic discussion on its own, and should not be confused with the very basic definition of creator I gave you. For most Theists who subscribe to any of these, they either believe God created out of nothingness, or out of its own eternal substance. In all events we speak of an act of creation - be it out of nothing, or out of something. This is the reason I gave you a definition referring to God as the creator of this universe. I deliberately limited the definition to that because scientifically, this universe is all that we know. As such, even if there was pre-existing matter and God skips merrily along to therewith form the universe with such, that is an act of creation. This same was embodied even in the Merriam Webster dictionary definition which I gave you. Read it again.

As such you will see that there is no space for you to begin to raise this issue to tamper with the basic definition I gave you. The definition is as simple as it gets - it works as a definition of what entity is referred to as God. If in the further discussion, you wish to show any problems with ex-nihilo or ex-materia or creatio ex-deo precepts, you are free to do so.

But that does nothing to take away the fact that the definition suffices as a basis to point out what is meant by the term "God" in the context of such a discussion. Do you still insist that it is not?

The definition stands whether ex-nihilo or ex materia or ex deo are concerned - note that proof of any of these is NOT being adduced or articulated here. All that is being profferred is a definition of what the word "God" refers to.

For this, you CANNOT say that that is not a definition from which a discussion may proceed!

You really should reflect on this your way of going about things and ask yourself if you are interested in serious discussions or in wasteful pettyfogging. I hope you realize that with your approach, no two persons on this planet can have any discussion whatsoever, for the simple reason that every word will be meaninglessly challenged no matter how simple and clear its meaning is. I am particularly embarrased that not even the fact that I sadly had to set out dictionary definitions of each word in the definition was enough to stop you from your same approach which just makes no sense whatsoever.

I can only be satisfied that that which I have severally complained of has manifested itself yet again: namely that there is NO definition that you will not quibble about, no matter how simple it may be, and also that you will never discuss the God issue beyond playing the most incredibly petty word definition games. In that case I will strongly suggest to you that you desist from all discussions whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of God - given that in your view, there is no definition of the word whatsoever that can even be discussed at all.

But perhaps I am the one hitting my head against the wall here. This is afterall not the first time you are doing this. You do it repeatedly. Its very sad actually. Because the existence of God is such a huge subject and its shameful to be restricted to word definition games only. I am still amazed that you can look yourself in the mirror and claim that with specific regard to atheistic/ theistic discussions, you do not know that the word God refers to a being said to be the source or creator of all else that exist. Really surprised. I don't know how that level of dishonesty is possible.

Edit: Post editted to curb some frustrated expressions.
Edit Edit: This post has been extensively editted as first and second attempts were quite irritable.

Dear Mr. Idehn,

Thank you for your response. There is much to address in there, but some of them will require threads of their own - particularly the issue of time and space. I will not address that issue here, save to briefly state that you need to distinguish between our perceptions of things and the things themselves. We have a perception of time and space: this does not mean that neither time nor space exist outside our minds. If that were the case, there would be no universe, and consequently no "us" ab initio. Well no matter. We shall leave that for another day and another thread. However I am also beginning to see exactyly what you said that we may never have a consensus on anything because we simply see existence in different terms.

But neither time nor space are made of neurons in the human brain. It is our perception of time and space that may consist of neurons.

But no matter.

Let me simply be very concise here. Given the way you challenge the simplest words and phrases, let me present to you a definition for the word "God" which I hope will be so simple that you could not quibble about it. I am hoping that this definition will be simple enough for you to finally say - "Okay, that is simple and clear enough, so let's discuss if such exists."

Definition -

"God" - A being said to be the Creator of the Universe.

Is this definition clear and succint enough to form a basis for a discussion as to whether such exists?

In anticipating you, (as I fear that every word within the sentence in red italics above may suddenly become problematic for you), let me go a step further to extract relevant dictionary definitions for each word in that sentence.

"Being" - Definition of BEING

1
a: the quality or state of having existence b (1): something conceivable as existing (2): something that actually exists (3): the totality of existing things c: conscious existence : life

2
: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially: personality

3
: a living thing; especially: person

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

For the purpose of this discussion, I believe Nos. 1(a) and 2 above are apt, as I do not wish to be drawn on the question of God being personal or impersonal, which I believe is neither here nor there concerning the question only of its existence.

"Creator" - Definition of CREATOR

: one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being; especially capitalized: "God"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creator?show=0&t=1338912434

"Universe" - Definition of UNIVERSE

: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: as

a: a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power

b: the world of human experience

c (1): the entire celestial cosmos (2): milky way galaxy (3): an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy

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

In the above, the definition of "Universe" apt for this discussion is C(1): i.e - "The entire celestial cosmos."

Mr. Idehn, in any normal discussion where "the discussants do not strive to deliberately misunderstand simple terms or concepts ordinarily, I would have had no need to trouble myself extracting the above definitions of the words "being", "creator" and "universe", and in some measure I hope you both appreciate the fact that I have taken the trouble to do this, as well as also understand exactly how tedious you have made discussions with you. It should have been simple enough for me to present the simple definition of God as "a being said to be the creator of the universe" - and the very fact that I have gone the length to define each word theirein and cited sources for each definition, is, I hope, instructive for you as to the way you have led discussions into becoming very difficult to proceed with, tedious, and ultimatley resulting in needless whirlppols of definitions of normally simple concepts.

So please in reverting to me on my question please take the above into consideration. If it is possible for you, please try not to turn this most simple definition into a nightmare from which no proper discussion on the existence or non-existence of such a creator can proceed. At all events, the sentence is so simple that if you do such, I will be content to leave things at that - as such would clearly prove my point to all and sundry indeed!

So here is the question again -

Do you accept this simplified definition of God -

"God" - A being said to be the creator of the universe -

- - - as a simple, clear and lucid enough definition on the basis of which a discussion regarding the existence or non-existence of such can proceed?

Many thanks.

Ah, nothing beats a nice, good, painful botched marriage.

Chrisbenogor:

Honestly, indeed o.

This discussion is disgusting.

There have always been, and will always be, imperfect men in the corridors of power. Indeed, political power often requires some degree of ruthlessness. I would not readily condemn MKO on that ground alone, especially in light of the events of 1993 - 1998, - which, as has been correctly pointed out, many here were too young to know about. My only conclusion will simply be that Nigerians are the most undeserving lot of people in this world. It is worthless making any sacrifice of any sort, or being a philanthropist in Nigeria. It would be better to be a philanthropist to swine.

The comments here are sacrilegous, and without sounding extreme, I wish to say that some people with their attitude here honestly either have no conscience, or no expectation of any grace in their future lives. PARTICULARY, people have no sense of the moment or import of national events: national history. For they heedlessly abuse their freedom of thought and conscience: and therewith one day they shall live again in the sort of society that they truly deserve: a brutal and unyielding dictatorship.

Nevermind the fact that people have not even averted their minds to the trusim that one cannot wrest power from military dictatorships without some element of guile: if not, outright rebellion. One or the other must hold.

People need to go and examine the lives of all the great and honoured men in history and see if they were all saints.

I am writing too much already. Like I said, I will just drop the below on the subject of education - READ -

"There has never been a philanthropist on the scale of MKO Abiola in the history of Nigeria. His oft-repeated life's ambition was to touch the life of every Nigerian one way or another. He may have succeeded in the area of education alone. In March 1990, he donated N1 million (equivalent of N40 million in 2010) to each state university; N50,000 (N2 million in 2010) to each federal university for student welfare; N20,000 (N800,000 in 2010) to the libraries of each federal university and N25,000 (N1 million in 2010) to each polytechnic and college of education in the country.

"He is credited with the construction of 63 secondary schools and 41 libraries. He established Abiola Bookshops to provide affordable, locally produced textbooks in the 1980s when imported text books became out of the reach of ordinary Nigerians; when the Naira was devalued. He awarded over 1,000 scholarships to deserving students in tertiary institutions at home and abroad.

.

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/unilag-abiola-family-thanks-jonathan-chides-protesters/117111/

My question is ever so simple: How many wealthy Nigerians, corrupt or not corrupt, ambitious or not ambitious - do such as this today?

To all of you I say: may that which you do in this life be not so unkindly spat on when you are gone.

Think again.

Peace.

Oh, and by teh way, as per the OP - one should not bother with these sorts of discussions. The notion that atheism is a religion is just iddiotic.

[b][size=14pt]Notice that I said, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation" and not “everything that begins to exist has a cause or explanation”. I said that because I know that sometimes dogmatic atheists may start to quibble with the definitions of even simple words like "something" "everything" etc in a manner that they wouldn't even dream of doing in the real world. Just take a look at the thread to see how some have even started asking for the meaning of "something" or "nothing". Can anyone reasonably conclude that the persons asking such questions are conspicuously mired in ambiguity when these terms are used? Can it be said that they have no conception of what it means to say that there is "something" or "nothing"? It kind of reminds one of the way Bill Clinton reputedly asked for what the word 'is' really meant during his Monica Lewinsky sex scandal investigation. Who really has the time or the desire for such inconsequential hair-splitting?[/size][/b]

.

The brilliant Prizm sums it up again!

And here again, for another great round of Idehn's insistence that there is no basic definition of what the word "God" refers to.

https://www.nairaland.com/693958/atheism-higgs-boson-god#8564583

I am yet to understand why he does not see the contradiction in even using the word at all, if it has no definition. Whenever some one says "God" in the context of any sentence, it is doubtful that Mr. Idehn can honestly say to himself that he is clueless on what the person means by such, in basic terms.

Hmmph!

Prizm:


[size=14pt]I have no desire for the sort of pointless exchanges where discussants intentionally strive as it were to misunderstand each other. And sadly, you have been guilty of this severally. One might conclude based on your questions and assertions that you have no real desire for an honest exchange of ideas – just unvarnished dogmatic skepticism. If your complaint is that some of the terms used are not clear, I suppose a brief research on your part, or an honest request for clarification will help. If your strategy is to dig in your heels and quibble over every word or sentence when they undercut some of your arguments or positions, then I am sorry to inform you that I have no stomach for that sort of merry-go-round. Anybody can sit in his/her easy chair and play the role of the unflinching skeptic.[/size]

Prizm said it all, three years ago!

Martian: ^^^
Yawn.

Nice to yawn when you CANNOT rebutt that which has been said.

Honestly. You guys should examine yourselves and some of the absurd claims you make. I am many times tempted to regard your atheism as a mere fad, something hip or fashionable for you, something that you think makes you look "smart."

Because otherwise I cannot fathom how you guys will say some of the things you say, such as to claim that the word "God" has no definition on which a discussion can commence. I really wonder why such a word is in the dictionary, and why disctionary-writers never bother to distinguish between the word "God" as used in the different religions?

plaetton: Let me try to answer this in another way.
Energy is the only thing that exists. When energy is in a state of equilibrium(perhaps temprory) we call it a state of nothingness.That is when god is said to exist in a state of perfection. When energy interacts(creation or big b.ang),energy is no longer in equilibrium and god is no longer perfect.
LeChatelier's principle sets in.
Lechatelier's principle states that " when a system is in equilibrium and then one of the factors responsible for the equilibrium is altered, the system will move so as to tend to annull the change and restore the equilibrium". The thermostat on your ac is a typical example.

So in this case,once energy was transormed into matter by way of E=MC2 in the big ban.g/creation, the system/energy or god went into disequilibrium and thus began the evolution of both the primordial energy/god and its ofspring(matter) in an attempt to restore the original equilibrium.
So everything is eventually evolving towards a state of perfection (nothingness).

Just take a look. Stars and galaxies are born and then over time, collapse and die(back to a temporary state of nothing, and then, new stars emerge from the same.
So, as it is above , so it is below. Organic life follows much the same cycle of equilibrium(death) and disequilibrium(life).
So the starting point of god's evolution would appear to be the big. ba.ng or during creation , as creationist would call it.

I love this.

Except the references to "nothingness" - - - that is absolutely NOT what nothingness refers to. It is absurd to describe any energy as nothingness - - - regardless its state.

Let me try another analogy. Once you give off a piece of your self to father a child, your life can never remain the same. From the moment of conception, the child evolves towards you and you evolve towards the child.

Not quite sure about this. But nice thought.

Purist: lol. This very much reminds me of my old theistic self. I would give what I felt were perfectly reasonable explanations in order to "bail" God out in such situations as this. I vividly remember presenting similar arguments here on Nairaland a few years back while debating those "ignorant", "arrogant" and "godless" fellas called "atheists". Oh, how things change. [/b]

Are you an atheist, Purist?

Martian: Doesn't the bolded support the atheist who says, god is a figment of your imagination? You said what god is "conceived as" because all views of god are subjective. Isn't that my point?

My friend, you cannot rest on this, because if that is the case, our entire existence will be nothing but imagination for the simple reason that we have conceptions of every single thing.

Olaadegbu claims his god is the real one and he presents jewish mythology as his evidence, tbaba presents the plagiarized version of the jewish myth and you just made your a "unembodied mind" up. The first two are simply middleeastern myths, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons you don't believe in them( recently, you ridiculed the virgin birth and those who believe in it), so don't try to present them as if you believe they are right. And your god is just the latest version of oneness of infinity. You've been defining and redefining what you "conceive" god as since we've both been on this board, so why should i suddenly take this "unembodied mind" serioulsy and discuss it. Why should i think your god is different from the rest?

Don't beat yourself up about all this - the simple point is the question as to whether or not the universe is created?

We need to look at principles of logic in that regard. If we do so, we would be inclined to believe that it is created on account of the principles of causality which we observe in that which we see in reality.

That's all. Any addittional beliefs are entirely NOT the remit of this discussion: I explain -

- Does Deep Sight Exist?

- If indeed it is commonsensical to believe that the posts herein are made by a humanbeing, then you could conclude that Deep Sight exists - IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF DEEP SIGHT WHICH DIFFERENT POSTERS MAY HAVE!

- Thus the issue is the existence of a creator - regardless the idiosyncratic notions about it.

So the common denominator is that they can't be proven

The common denominator is in the principle of prime cause of existence and reality. Simple. Not even you can deny that. Especially with reference to a theistic/ atheistic debate.

But every theist isn't speaking about the same creator

Indisputably, every theist is saying that there is A creator. Stop pettifogging.

Because if there is in reality a creator of this universe, it would mean that the atheist is wrong - regardless of the one million wrong or right views of such a creator that may exist. If a creator exists, the atheist is wrong, simple. The fact that Jews think of it as a blood thirsty Yahwoeh would not mean that they were thus wrong on the supposition which concerns the athiest/ theist debate: namely that there is a creator.

As such, the definition whirlpools are still moot, empty, and miss the pith of the discourse.

There is no escapism, your god and their gods are all in your heads. They are what you "conceive" the "creator" to be like because you don't know even if there is a creator talkless of defining it as an "unembodied mind". What the hell is an unembodied mind??

There is no difference between that term and the initial term that I used when I spoke about the Oneness of Infinity (Peace be upon it). But seeing the furore generated on this forum by that term, let's, for purposes of discussion, simply say that God refers to the Creator of the Universe. I am hoping that that is simple enough, and that it will beyond even you to claim that that is an unclear definition: remember - it is a definition - and not proof. Proof is where the proper discussion comes in. My issue is that Mr. Idehn will not allow a proper discussion because he will tell you that even this, as simple as it is, is an unclear or difficult definition. This is where I see unfathomable dishonesty or just irascible fundamentalism in you both. You are more rigid than teh religionist, and far less open to new ideas than the religionist is.

I don't ask if the creator is good or evil or the other crap you wrote, the answer to the question is that no one knows if there is a creator of the universe and every explanantion that depends someone's personal opinion is nothing but an opinion. If you want to discuss it, then make it make sense, "unembodied mind" and other intangible features doesn't make you right.

The laws of cause and effect, thermodynamics, and motion, are not my personal opinion, bro.

These self same laws heavily rest in favour of the theistic notion that there is an external element responsible for the causation of the universe.

Oh, and just for readers, this is not a new matter. Its very old on this board. Mr. Idehn has always insisted - sometimes to the point of absurdity, that even in terms of atheistic/ theistic discussions, there is no basic or common definition of the word "God" from which a discussion can commence.

https://www.nairaland.com/818040/deepsight-does-god-create-ex#9712944

How does one have any discussion on the existence/ non-existence of God, with such a poster.

An impossibility!

Martian: hmm, just because you settled it with your self doesn't mean everybody agrees.

So this cosmic mind of yours doesn't need a physcial brain. lol

Of course it is, Lord DeepSight!!

Whatever you say milord, it is indeed beyond cavil!!! God will henceforth be known as that "unembodied transcendental mind"................at least it's better than Anony's "extraphysical".

I hope you are not missing the point here. The point is not at the outset to prove the existence of "God" as any group may conceive. It is simply to state - this is what God is conceived as - as a basis for then commencing a discussion. So if you are discussing with Olaadegbu, you know what he has in mind. Claiming that you dont is a lie. He is clear that he is referring to the Christian ontology of God. If you are speaking to TBABA1234, you also know what he has in mind. If you are speaking to me, I have also been clear about what I have in mind. Therefore my issue with Idehn is that there is no need to quibble about definitions. The discussion should proceed. You can then go on to show why God as conceived by the person you are discussing with, does not exist. Rather than claiming there is no definition. This is a lie.

The biggest piont in this, is that for all three views of God referred to above, there are core common denominators. You guys cannot lie that there aren't. All three regard God as non-physical/ intangible, transcendental, supreme, and the eternal first cause/ creator. It takes a staggering level of dishonesty for anyone to claim that this is not the case, or that such does not form an essential definition on which a proper debate can then proceed.

In fact, if you guys reflect for one second you will see how untenable what you are saying is. This is because the fundamental debate between the atheist and the theist is as to whether there exists a creator of this reality in which we live. That is the core of the debate. As such, for the purpose of such a debate, only one attribute even needs any recognition in terms of the discusion - the attribute of being "creator". That is all. So you can see how hopelessly misfooted this business of "define this, define that", really is!

Because you each know that every theist is speaking about a Creator.

And in pure logic, questions such as who created the creator, is the creator good or evil, is the creator physical/nonphysical - are in reality tangential to the discussion. The pure question is if there is a creator of this universe. If there is, then the question is answered, whether it be created by something else, and whether it be good or evil, and whether it be physical or non-physical.

That's the point.

Simply saying that there is no definition is the lie of lies and escapism of escapisms in all recorded history.

Idehn: Oh, Deepsight I knew you just could not resist.

If you do not accept that the definition of God varies from person to person than you are welcome to that opinion. Pretending like everyone can read each others minds when the matter of God comes up is just silly. It is almost as silly as assuming everyone has the same definition for natural wouldn't you say . Let this gentlemen present his notion of what God is instead of putting words into his mouth.

I actually have no qualms with anybody asking for a specific definition of God in relation to a specific discussion. The only reason I consistently bother you about this is the fact that you go on ad infinitum ad nauseum and deliberately stall discussions at that point alone. I am aware, just as you are, that there is no definition which any one can give or has ever given, which has allowed you to say, very well, let us discuss this God as defined. You will simply say that the definition is not good and as such there can be no discussion. Can you deny that this is what you have consistently and tiresomely done?

Have you ever accepted any definition whatsoever as a basis for engaging any discussion?

Even when I have offered you the barest minimum common denominator in the universal understanding of the word "God" - you have still rejectred same and refused to discuss, claiming that there is no definition and as such, no discussion can hold on the subject. You have done this consistently for a very long time, and frankly its tiresome and irritating.

I also see it as dishonest: at the minimum you cannot claim to be unaware that in general terms and in relation to these dicussions, "God" refers to a non-physical entity said to be the creator of the physical universe and all subsequent reality. Denying that just prolongs your age-long dis-honesty on the subject, IMO.

It also comes across as rather cowardly. As though you are afraid of venturing beyond your comfort zone of denying definitions, as per these discourses. I say this because as you must be aware, there are many very advanced further stages of these sorts of discussions, dealing with deep philosophical principles and scientific and logical questions/ notions - but sadly, as you know, nobody has been able to get to such interesteing levels of the discussion with you, because you always strangle the discussion at the outset by claiming that there is nothing to discuss because there is no definition. Use any definition you find in a dictionary for all I care.

Reason you grow weary because cannot even get your own definitions straight. Look back at our discussion about natural. My definition was clear,coherent, and meaningful. Every query you threw at it did nothing to change this. However, at the end of the day you did nothing more than throw a tantrum and complain to the tune of "it just ain't right". What you really were doing was trying to give you personal preferences super powers by claiming that they were based on something objective (nature). If you want to put the cart before the horse than fine. But do not expect me to even pretend like that is how it is supposed to work.

Not at all, you severly mangled the word "nature" in that conversation and badly conflated it with "reality". I thought it was quite horribly done, but simply grew tired, as i'm sure you did. I am still going to revert there, so look out for it; it will be an exhaustive but last attempt to enable you see how badly wrong it is to equate the concept of the word "natural" with "anything that exists" - that is a horribly off-the-mark notion, and I hope you will take the time to carefully read my response when I do.

Again you are under the presumption that "space" is a physical object that exist outside of the brain. That is simply wrong. It is no more meaningful than claiming that the borders of Nigeria represent something that physically exist outside of the ink on maps and globes. Unless of course the border actually corresponds to something physical like a river or mountain. Otherwise it does not exist beyond a concept stored in the brain. If you cannot be bothered to clarify the fundamentals of a dialectic, then my friend it is you who is intellectually lazy.

Can you answer me these questions -

1. You say that space and time are only concepts that exist in our minds, yes?

2. Does the Universe exist, independent of our minds, yea or nay?

3. Is there space in the universe?

4. Is there time in the universe?

5. Does the Universe exist within or outside space and time?

6. Does the Universe exist in our mind only as a concept?

7. If humans did not exist, would the universe still exist?

8. If humand did not exist, would there cease to be space and time in the universe?

If clever, as I know you are, you will see how badly you are mangling things again. Your definition of time and space are violently unscientific, notwithstanding that you like to stand by science. Science does not describe space and time as mere concepts in our mind. Space and Time have scientific descriptions as physical things, as a construct of a fabric forming a continuum in which the universe is. We are only a tiny part thereof and it is absurd to imagine the super-construct not to exist if we were not here with our minds. Terribly and violently contradictory illogic actually. But I FEAR THAT AS WITH ALL THINGS, you will not see the glaring, the obvious.

Like him you are making the same mistake. Space/time are concepts that exist in the brain. They are not same as other physical objects like balloons/bags that you can fill with air(or in this case the universe).

Well, since you like to stand by science, I will have you know that this is scientific harakiri. Absolutely false as per science. Current scientific thinking postulates the universe as xisting in three dimensions of space and one dimension of time forming a spacetime continuum. It does not postulate that this exists only in our heads - otherwise it would amount to postulating that the universe exists only in our heads. Please understand carefully that the fact that we develop concepts about things, does not mean that the things are the concepts or the concepts are the things.

Furthermore, think for a moment about what you are saying. If the Universe had to expand into something else then it would not be the Universe. It would be the Universe minus the thing everything else has to expand into.

No, it would be the universe. What makes you think anything that exists [u]outside]/u] this universe must be part of this universe. What if we have a multiverse?

In which case you would have to ask more absurd questions like, what is the something(what you call space) expanding into?

Nope, this is an assumption, because we do not know that any such thing is expanding - we do not even know what it is.

I just need to make a few further comments to show what I mean by tiresome definition games and running around in meaningless circles.

Idehn: Asking what space the universe is expanding into is not a meaningful question. Space is the metric by which we measure the size of the universe(in this case volume).

This is just classic escapism. Aside from this, it does not task itself in the least. The questions states - into what is space expanding - and as such it remains a perfectly valid question save for the escapist materialist or the intellectually lazy. Note carefully "into what" - does not necessarily suggest that the space that we scientifically define is the same thing as the "what" being quesried here.

The inescapable fact remains that the universe is evidentially expanding. It would thus be the height of absurdity to contend that there is nothing into which it expands and that such a question regarding what it expands into is not apt. The summary of what you did was this - faced with this question which has the capacity to unhinge your postulations about everything existing only in scientificaly defined time and space, you have effectively attempted a jail-break by absurdly asserting space to be a concept only - and not a real thing.

My friend, if that is the case, then the universe also is a concept only, and does not exist - as you have said that everything that we know to exist, exists only within such constructs of time and space. I hope you can see the lamentable and catastrophic work that you have done here.

It is not at all clear what you mean when you say "create/design" a Universe.

Here is another tiresome example of definition games and deliberate attempts to obsfucate simple words. Especially as it is followed with -

Especially when you appeal to things that exist outside the conceptual framework of time/space which informs every aspect of the meaning of the words create and design.

- - - Shocking, because when asked the question as to what space is expanding into, this here good man suddenly claims that there is nothing like space at all. This is what I mean by tirelessly and meaninglessly running around in circles.

Again your parable is completely in appropriate. It would be like trying to design virtual Universe outside the framework of space and time. How do you possibly do such a thing when every single thing we know/do is tied to the concepts of space and time? The concepts would invariably permeate the design whether you wanted it to or not.

This is exactly what makes the question relevant - If we consider that things only exist within the construct of space and time - as scientifically defined - then we wonder how it is possible for the universe to expand at all. Into what is it expanding? ? ?