₦airaland Forum

wirinet: Of course there is a finite number of possible or conceivable sounds. First of all sounds are mechanical disturbance of air that our ears are sensitive to. And the human ear is sensitive to a limited range of frequencies, from about 20hz to 20MHz. We cannot perceive lower and higher frequencies.

Then there are no infinite graduation of sounds between notes, in its fundamental state all energy is not continuous but quantized, so only specific basic unit of graduation is allowed. Light is also emitted and absorbed in quanta.

Okay, lets widen the post a little. You have yourself struck on something without recognizing it.

You said that "the human ear is sensitive to a limited range of frequencies, from about 20hz to 20MHz. We cannot perceive lower and higher frequencies."

Please note the bolded within the italicized above.

This infers that there are many frequencies that the human ear is not sensitive to.

And as such, obviously many sounds that humans can not or do not hear.

Which would infer the possibility of the existence of many notes that humans do not perceive.

Would your conclusion be revised if in the future humans develop greater auditory refinement and thus are exposed to a new world of frequencies?

Are ALL the possible frequencies in existence finite?

Please refer to same questions for LIGHT as well.

There are quanta of light that humans cannot see, no? Some animals have better refinement in that regard. To what extent can we state that such quanta are really finite? Is it to the extent of our perception only? Do the issues of sound and light not tend to gradations of infinity? Is there trully a state of absolute no light or absolute no sound, anywhere in existence, or is there rather just reduced or increased gradations, which tend to infinity?

^ Well I think I have explained that they are not the same. Personal or impersonal, Deists believe in God. Atheists do not believe in God, personal or impersonal. You may want to do some reading on both. The Deist is a breed of theist.

You may note that there are religions that do not even emphasize God. Are such atheist? Please reflect on this question: Are Buddhists atheists?

jayriginal: What do you think about Miller's experiment ?

Dear, it says nothing about the origin of life. Like other experiments, it merely refers to the very natural, very normal and very understandable composition of inanimate components such as acids. Life on earth obviously is made of various elements of matter. Water is predominant everywhere: so just take this analogy: it is like a scientist showing how water is formed and then concluding that he has shown the creation of first life. Simples.

Is it your view that man came to be; whole ab initio?

No: I believe in evolution.

My view however, is that it was a guided and directed process.

Dear EA7,

Good day to you.

Please, Deism and Atheism are not even remotely similar. A Deist is still a breed of Theist. The Deist believes in the existence of God. His conception of God, perhaps different from that of the religious Theist, but all the same he believes in the existence of God. Also I should nention that Deism is not cast in any dogmatic cloak: as such, every deist has his own conception of God and of reality in general. There is even Christian DEISM -

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

As such you can see that Deism is NOT atheism.

Logic Mind: why?
i think the debate we should be having is whether your god yahweh exists, in which case you need to really describe well him so we can test his existence.
remember i cannot prove that he does not exist.
however, there are surely compelling reasons why you believe in him and this is what i want to understand.

I don't believe in the ancient middle-eastern pagan deity called Yahweh. Nor do I subscribe to any religion.

I am approaching this from a philosophical and cosmological stand point only.

That thread discusses alot interesting issues on the burden of proof in the matter of a creator.

Please review it - at least the first page fully.

Cheers.

@ Logic Mind,

Please review this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

Is there really a finite number of possible or conceivable sounds?

^ ^ ^ Not tenable. You are ceasing to be rational. My statement was predicated in this statement by you:

"How about not believeing in a God because the Religious Texts are faulty?"

You made that in response to my averrment that there is no scientific basis for atheism.

I state that that is a lazy reason to advance because the question of the causation of this reality - which is what the God-question is about, certainly exceeds religion: it is not limited to religion. It has been the inquiry of philosophy and cosmology for centuries. As such, merely rejecting the issues on account of faulty "religious" texts is lazy: it is not expansive enough.

In the mind of the truly rational man, the God question needn't have anything to do with religion: much less 'faulty' religious texts.

Deep Sight: ^ ^ ^ Okay, so let us suppose, just for the sake of supposition - that mankind one day arrive at the "very large number" of possible musical tunes which you refer to. In other words, a day comes when mankind have made that "very large number" of musical tunes.

Upon the dawn of that fine day, is it your position that mankind will NOT be able to produce any new tunes beyond that?

@ Alethiea: infact, you should probably also address this separately with respect to all sound since you have referred to sound waves, et all. In the day that mankind reaches the "very large number" of all possible sound as you put it: do you think mankind will never be able to create any new sound.

Do you think there is a limit to the words that mankind may create?

^ ^ ^ Okay, so let us suppose, just for the sake of supposition - that mankind one day arrive at the "very large number" of possible musical tunes which you refer to. In other words, a day comes when mankind have made that "very large number" of musical tunes.

Upon the dawn of that fine day, is it your position that mankind will NOT be able to produce any new tunes beyond that?

The creation of music rests in combinations. Do you really think that there is a possible limit to to sorts of sounds and combinations thereof possible?

Do you think there are not sorts of sound as yet undiscovered?

^ ^ ^ It is a trap alright, but I fear you might be the one to fall into it.

Please do read the post in the link I gave you. Important before you proceed.

thehomer: How about not believing in a God because the religious texts are faulty?

Predicating belief or unbelief in a creator on ancient religious texts is beyond lazy.

rastamouse: Every real thing has a cause ---- formula 1
Life is real ---- formula 2

From the two formula above, Life has a cause.

How does this prove anything about GOD?

Going back to the formulas, whatever is called the cause is GOD.

Be careful with this because it will lead to a conclusion that God is not real, since God is uncaused, and your first premise asserts that everything real has a cause.

Please read a post from this chap and see if this argument can be refined -

https://www.nairaland.com/315294/atheists-empirical-reasoning-existence-god/5#4448852

Its a post by a poster called "Prizm"

aletheia:

First off: your starting premise is flawed. We can create a whole lot of musical tunes . . . but is it really an infinite number?

Pastor AIO says there are an infinite number of gradations between one pitch and another. A Continuum in fact.

1. I think the nature of sound waves belies that. Sound waves are discrete mechanical waves not continuous EM waves, e.g middle C is 256 Hz. They are generated by vibrations propagating through a medium.

2. Not all sound is perceived as music. Indeed what is music to one culture is dissonance to another. Sounds making up music must be arranged in a certain harmonic sequence for them to be perceived as pleasant by the human brain. It can be supposed that this perception is hard-wired into our brains and thus must necessarily limit the ways in which a potential composer would arrange notes into a harmonious melody or else we would all be composers randomly assembling sounds into music.

3. Given the foregoing, we are left with a limited but very very large number of sounds (gogoolplex) and a limited but very very large number of ways (gogoolplex) in which to combine them into music.

4. You cannot generate an infinite amount from a finite amount --- since there is always an upper limit to the number of ways in which finite quantities can be combined (Combinatorial mathematics affirms this).

5. In conclusion: gogoolplex raised to gogoolplex may seem to us infinite but it is still not infinity.

I think we use the words infinite/infinity rather loosely, don't you think?

Perhaps if you could express pi (or other transcendental numbers) in music . . .

Do you think that this places a ceiling on the amount of musincal tunes that could ever be conceived?

Joagbaje: I dont get your point very well. Are you into music? Is it about new songs being released daily?

Haaa. . .u fall my hand small. . .but i guess you are still on point. . .let me rephrase: is there any limit to the new tunes that may be conceived?

^ ^ ^

Deep Sight: Sometimes we should not allow the excess of our critical exuberance to make us attempt to do the undoable: namely: attempt to limit the boundaries of someone else's reality.

Faith in what, Martian, I think you need to define.

You have faith yourself - in certain things. You may for example have faith in the loyalty of a loved one, no? Faith in your ability to pass an exam, no?

If you can have faith in these things, why? Its because you have experienced such loyalty, or such ability. As such you have faith. It comes from your experience.

Now tell me, in that light - why can I not have faith for example, in my dreams - if it has been my life long experience that my dreams consistently play out in reality with precision shortly after they occur. In such a circumstance, is it not only natural that I will have faith in the consistency of my dreams?

Now, if I can have faith in my dreams, why can someone else not have faith in say, his prayers?

Now, what is the distance between faith in prayer and faith in God?

Sometimes we should not allow the excess of our critical exuberance to make us attempt to do the undoable: namely: attempt to limit the boundaries of someone else's reality.

I simply cannot stand ideas which refer to humans as Almighty God. Can't understand why we see local myths for what they are and yet embrace foreign myths so ardently that we gaze with terror on anyone who denies those myths. Such as the virgin birth. Such as remission of sins by the death on the cross. Its really unimaginable. What really gets me is the fact that rejection of these ridiculous beliefs can actually make one a pariah in this society. If one is not careful, it will even become diufficult to get married to a decent woman of respectable background.

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.

We find ourselves in this world, living, thinking, feeling, intelligent beings. We see the world and universe about us. We are aware that we were not always here: that we were born - and we are aware that we will not always be here: that we die.


In truth perhaps it may be said that this is about all we can be absolutely certain of.


However we are typically born in one or more already existing religious worldviews – wherein we are taught a vast array of already existing and accepted “religious truths.” The vast majority of us end up accepting the Religion and Worldview of their birth and family as the one for ourselves. Some stray however.


Opening proposition: Having found ourselves in the natural world, it makes sense to look at the natural world about us in our search for truth. This natural world, is what I will call “The book of Life.”


Proposition Number One: [/b]Having found ourselves in the world: and having seen clearly that mankind is not perfect, we should not presume any of the “religious truths” that we have met within the world to be necessarily true or correct or perfect – but should rather seek to genuinely find that which is the truth about our existence in this world. Here I am not saying that one should reject the religion of one’s birth: but only that each human being owes it to himself to question himself, make inquiries, and search deeply for truth. It may well be that such a search will lead back to the religion of one’s birth but nonetheless –


A sincere self-examination and personal search for truth should always be undertaken by everybody. This is the first proposition.


[b]Proposition Number Two: In the individual’s search for truth, the individual must ask himself which things he can honestly say that he knows within his mind to be true and which things he has merely accepted by an assumption. The individual having observed the nature of mankind must be keenly aware that history is replete with deceit: and that not everything that is reported to have happened can necessarily be believed to have happened, and vice versa. Most importantly, I think, the individual has to ask himself – in the context of his existence - which supposed truths are relevant and which are irrelevant?


Basically the individual is urged to accept as truth that which his mind knows for sure to be true – not necessarily because he has merely been told that such is true. He is urged also to sift the wheat from the Chaff by determining that which, even if true: is irrelevant to his existence as opposed to that which is both true and relevant to his existence. This is the second proposition.


Proposition Number Three: Now the Search for Truth proceeds. What can the individual say that he knows for sure? The very first question: the eternal question in the search for truth has been – where did all this (the world) come from? What is the source of all things?


Without much ado: and without the need for any advanced argument the Individual by common sense can agree within his mind that the world about him must have a source just as everything he observes has a source, a process for its existence. The Individual can apprehend that given the vastness of the world about him, and the incredible nature of its natural wonders, its creatures, its plants, and its natural beauty: that the source is a meaningful source: and that the source is of great capability and potential.


Expressed in the many different languages of mankind this source is what mankind throughout history have intuitively referred to as “God” – the maker of all things. This is the third proposition.


Proposition Number Four After the thought – “God created all things” – the next logical thought is “for what purpose?” – basically the quest of the individual to determine the purpose of his existence – and contextualize this with the purpose of all existence. Implicit in this already, for the discerning is a recognition that the individual bears a need to understand his existence in the context of all existence – and this implies that he has a need – he is compelled towards – blending with – or harmonizing with his environment and all existence.


The Individual can thus both logically and intuitively grasp that the purpose of existence - and his existence – is harmony. This is the fourth proposition.


Initial Summation: Beyond these, I am not sure that there is much else that the individual can honestly claim that he knows for certain. Everything else there is to be known, which is relevant to the individual’s existence, I believe are inferences and intuitive perceptions from the foregoing basic truths. I can only say for now that the advanced and exact knowledge of supposed celestial spiritual happenings which are contained within the many religions - in my humble opinion – cannot really be said to be known for sure by anybody, and are thus largely assumed beliefs – and not steady and certain truth. This is the basis for my claim to that which I believe I may rationally and intuitively know for certain; namely that there is a source – God and that the purpose of the source is harmony.


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

@ EA7,

Many apologies for attending this thread rather late. I see that the thread has already been battered.

Nevertheless as you addressed this to me, may I offer a few thoughts. I don't think this thread can or should properly debate the existence of God (that has been done in a zillion other threads) - what I rather propose to do is to set out the fundamental premise for belief in a creator God, and then, without argument, proceed to show why the deistic conception should make sense.

Fundamental Premises for the existence of God -

In our observatory experience of reality, material phenomena are subject to the law of cause and effect. The Universe, being a material phenomenon, which demonstrably commenced at a point, must remain subject to cause and effect. Indeed, as I have said many times, nothing material can be observed to move without a triggering factor: such would be contrary to everything that science knows. As such, it stands to reason to suppose that the universe had a cause, a triggering factor. Now the universe being material, could therefore not have a material cause as nothing material can be its own cause: no effect is its own cause. As such the universe must have had a pre-existent immaterial or intangible cause.

Further upon this, we know that elements do not bequeath to succeeding elements factors which they do not bear in them selves. I may capture this by the lay proverb which has become a legal maxim when it is said that no one can give that which he does not have. This is also true in genetic biology. As such, it stands to reason to conclude that the potentialities observed in the universe, including energy, power, matter, life, etc, are all potentialities whose origin are encoded in the pre-existent intangible cause. This leads to the conception of that cause as not only pre existent and intangible, but also bearing the " DNA " if I may say, for all that the universe contains, including life, and sentient life.

This generally forms for me, a logical foundation to admit of the existence of God, as that pre existent intangible causative element.

I might add that God is the "core egg" of eternity itself, the foundation of reality, but it is better I leave it with the suppositions above, for the purpose of this discourse, lest I increase the bandwidth for atheistic bashing.

Why is the Deistic Conception Reasonable?

So if we start with the above, with the supposition that the existence of God is a rational construct, we proceed from there. It is important to note that one has not ascribed any presumptuous attributes to God in this context: attributes such as goodness, mercy, love, etc. Such would allow the atheist to rightfully ask how one comes to such conclusions. As such we leave the construct as simple as that which is rational would permit: namely that there is a cause of this reality which we live in, and that that cause necessarily and logically pre exists this reality, and that that cause is intangible, as matter cannot be its own cause. This is the fundamental idea of God.

Now let us consider what such a cause is a little further. The quality of intangibility naturally infers that this is not an element that is made: it is rather a self-existent constant which as I said earlier, is eternity itself. Where this is the case, we cannot begin to suppose an element that is changeable in the way that material things change: if we are referring to eternity, then we are looking at a constant.

To the extent that we are looking at a constant, we must recognize that such an element can only work with principles embedded into the very nature of reality: which principles I have previously explained are actually the sum total of what constitutes God. As such it is thought that self-existent principles, the total of which are what God is, operate in that which we see as resultant in creation.

If this is the case, dear friends, then it stands to reason that the creations which come into existence on account of the operation of the self-existent principles of God will be creations which operate inexorably under same principles. The same principles which naturally govern such operations, and everything that occurs therein will be along the paths of the various gradations of such principles. What this effectively means is that you cannot have a universe which requires any further "personal" intervention from God in anyway: nor will it even be possible for God, the sum of all self-existent principles, so to do.

It will only be possible for the principles to continue to operate eternally and effect or affect that which occurs in reality. As such, as a small example only, the self-existent eternal principle of magnetism will take effect in the cosmos, in eco-systems, and even in human lives in line with the nature of the principle itself eternally. Self-existent elements are unchangeable, and as such these principles cannot and will not be changed by "prayer" or anything else, to suit anybody. Therein lies what is called the eternal justice of God.

It is rather degrading when the religionist conceives of a God who needs to intervene regularly in creation. That would only disclose a God who has not set a proper system in place. God being what it is, rests in the self-existent principles of reality, and those principles operate in an adamantine fashion, and as such, there cannot be any "special" intervention in things as the religionist imagines.

This is that which resonates with me: and this is why I have called myself an empirical and intuitive deist. Empirical because much of what I believe, in my mind, accords with reason, science and even abstract disciplines such as mathematics. Intuitive because there is an intuitive part of man that can apprehend these things: and for that part: I cannot really offer explanations to him who does not perceive already. It will be worse than arguing with someone who says that a micro-chip was formed by years of undirected evolution, particles mindlessly joining and forming over eons, produces a micro-chip. And yet a micro-chip is not a millionth as complex as a single cell. Not to speak of a human brain.

Thank you.

My pleasure, I await the thread!

I have read the link and I must say it was glaring from the context of the first usage that our logicboy did indeed think Israel is in Europe. Funny enough, the subsequent excuses, such as Trade Agreements and Sports, are actually economic matters. As far as political alliances go, the United States, as you mentioned, is actually Israel's cheif allied party in International Politics.

^^^ I am Deist.

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

https://www.nairaland.com/359542/god-existence-deist-perspective

aletheia: Do I detect an echo of Zeno's Achilles & the Tortoise paradox?

That man was a very wicked and sinister agent of Lucifer.

His paradoxes were satanic attempts to destroy God's wonderful creation.

Holy Ghost fire consume him.

Aaaaaamen!

Lol!

Seriously now, for those interested -

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

Again, what does this tell us about the nature of reality?

Martian: I don't know and I'm not going to make stuff up just to fill the gap. If there was a trigger, how will you know the nature of that trigger when the same people who came up with the big b@ng theory are not sure? Are you now an expert?

When did I tell you the nature of the trigger.

I am open to whatever it might be - heck: it might even by a highly evolved material being like us that did it all, it might be part of an evolving multiverse, etc. We don't know. When I speak of God, I speak at the level of the primordial cause of all existence. Personally, I dont believe this is the only universe. I imagine there must be virtually infinite multiverses. Just my personal thought.

But at the root of it all, rests the eternal, the unchanged. . . .

Your views on science don't hold weight because you can hardly tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. You also embrace the theories you agree with and vehemently put down the one you don't. The origin of life is another topic that I'm sure about but I have no reason not to think that the first lifeform was started by natural processes. We only know of life on this planet so far anyway, so for you to jump to conclusions is what's unscientific because research still continues.

When did I say the origin of the first life form is not natural?

bla bla bla.

You simply have no answer to the fact that Theism is in line with current proven science: namely the fact that material life as we know it, only comes from previously existing life.

I guess the above inane canard is scientific.

^ ^ ^ U don't follow that quote above. Pity. Hmm. How can I explain it again?

Kay 17: I do disagree with you on that. The "Creator" will extend a part of himself as material to build the universe, as a result fill it with HIS substance. The creator is necessarily material.

In the way that I envision it, endless rays of the light energy of the creator is what streams into creations. There could be many gradations of such streaming, but it would appear to me that matter is the coarsest result therefrom.

I have used this analogy before: Have a look at air. Imagine this to be the "non material" beginning. As it streams and looses heat, it becomes liquid. That's a second gradation. Further loss of heat will eventually freeze it into ice. It becomes solid. Thats a third gradation. This is just a coarse example but this is similar to how I imagine the streaming of the energy of God eternally bringing forth different gradations.

Note that the solid gradation may not have the mobility and flexibity of the liquid gradation. And the liquid gradation may not have the mobility of the gaseous gradation.

The gradation which is so fine that it is "the tipping point to nothingness*" is the divinity that is God.

* Portion in italics being a quite From Pastor AIO

debosky: That is Jay's 'evidence' supporting his theory of an endless series of expansions and contractions.

Not something I agree with, although the experiment will shed light on little understood aspects of the universe.

Actually the idea of successive expansions and contractions is interesting even if unproven.

For me, it does not obviate the requirement for a beginning of such a series for the simple reason that matter being mutable and tangible, cannot be self-existent and thus not eternal in the past.

jayriginal: However the Universe is, is how it is.

Profound

logicboy: Well, if life comes from life, then God has to come from another life. Endless cycle? Or am I wrong?

Of course that is true of all life we have observed in this realm.

This can only mean that there is a pre-existent life.

That pre-existent life which is the cause we refer to is intangible and thus eternal.

Material life is tangible and thus not eternal.

Does isreal partake in North American trade agreements? Does it partake in North American sporting events?

Isreal is in the European champions league for a reason

Gotcha. Don't even know the discussion you guys were referring to. Can you give me the link?[/quote]

^^^ Nope!

Zeus. There. That is the reason you don't see me using names. I simply repeat the law of material cause and effect and the laws of motion. The initial expansion called the big b.ang being motion, required a trigger. Name that trigger what you will. I have no need of names.

Atheism is very unscientific to the extent that proven scientific knowledge shows that life only comes from pre-existing life. Notions to the contrary all so far remain speculations. For this reason, the theist's belief in a pre-existent living element is in line with science and the atheist's rejection of same is contrary to proven science.

Simples