₦airaland Forum

Seun: As an atheist, I have contributed Nairaland to humanity, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Tai Solarin contributed Mayflower School which set many young children on the path to success.

Those are your contributions sir, and they have nothing to do with your athiesm. Neither did Tai Solarin building a school have anything to do with his atheism.

[quote author=re@lchange]that is partly why i have never seen a map of nigeria with state boundaries inside ocean. their boundaries all stop on land.[/quote]Think about this. Have you even seen an international political map with boundaries in the sea either? You only see that when you search for a map addressing that. Nigeria must apply same principles in determining off shore internal borders

^ Yes, and in sharing the money, the derivation principle is taken on board for off shore as well because the seas are parts of states

@ Ndu Chucks - ^ Ol boy, I am tired of your ignorance in legal matters. I already explained above. The resources are owned by the Federation but are divided based on several principles, including derivation. For the purpose of computing what resources are earned from states, the seas are parts of states because Section 2 renders it so.

I don't have the neregy to engage you because you turned up blank the last time.

oiseworld: i taya ohh bro. am surprised it has gotten to this. You can't seperate the sea from the states. Abi how i go talk am self? They bear the bad of the sea not the notherners. Loot at the tsunamies and tonadoes oil spillage and so on that take place in the sea and its coastal cities, nobody is talking about that. but with oil matter people from very distance region say na their own. Too bad. If gold is found in the desert up north where nobody lives them go say na their own. They even rear cattles from state to state soooootay fulani say na them get land.

As long as nigeria through delta,bayelsa,rivers extend over 200 meters into the sea, then those states own the sea and its resources.

Technically, under Section 44 (3), the Federation owns the resources. Thed issue is simply that when [b]dividing[/b]those resources, the Constitution requires that derivation is taken into account. To that extent, all those sea-ward resources must be affected by the derivation principle because the seas are part of states, under Section 2.

[quote author=ndu_chucks]Err, please tell your ole n tel'afas (Beaf & co), that there is a clear distinction between (1)any land in Nigeria, (2)its contiguous continental shelf and all rivers, streams and water courses throughout Nigeria and (3)its territorial waters.

Please additionally inform them that Ownership of ALL minerals and natural resources located in Nigeria's territorial waters, by law and constitution is vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria and not to any state.

Deep Sight, stop the laziness and misinformation.[/quote]As far as I know, it is you who was most lazy indeed when last we interacted. I showed you the law, and you could raise nothing of moment up against it.

Again, I show you the law: I am making no arguments - I simply show you the law.

Now you have mentiioned the "contigious shelf, all rivers, streams and water courses." The problem is simply that Section 2 of the Constitution does not mention those. It is the section that defines what Nigeria consists os Politically and it states very clearly that Nigeria Consists of 36 states and the FCT. Accordingly, all parts of Nigeria are either in a state or in the FCT.

Now, understand this carefully - I do not deny that the constitution provides that all resources in and under water and land vest in the Government of the Federation (Section 44(3)). That is the case even with onshore oil. The argument is simply a question as to whether the principle of derivation should apply to off-shore oil.

Under the constitution, it should, because all parts of Nigeria are either in states or the FCT.

Even on-shore oil vests in the Federation, so understand carefully - the issue is how are the proceeds divided? The same constitution provides that 13 per cent of all such proceeds shall be divided based on the principle of derivation. And since those waters are constitutionally within states, then constitutionally, the derivation principle applies to them.

[quote author=re@lchange]but you are not making sense bruv
why do we have federal universities inside nigerian states serving the catchment area local to them ie the states citizens? why do we have federal roads funded by the federal government inside states?

nobody is answering this question[/quote]Because the Federation has responsibilities as stated under the Constitution. The FG may legislate on matters on the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative lists, and act thereon.

However, under the same constitution, ALL parts of Nigeria are either in a state or the FCT.

That is the law.

I reproduce below Section 2 of the Constitution of Nigeria -

2. (1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation CONSISTING OF States and a Federal Capital Territory.

As such, every part of Nigeria is either in a state or the FCT.

That is the law.

Actually, under the Constitution of the Federal Republic, Nigeria is stated to consist of 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

Accordingly, constitutionally, there is no part of Nigeria (land or sea) that is not either in a state or in the FCT.

That, gentlemen, is the law of the land.

^ O, and I must mention again that your failure to raise a single example of an uncaused material thing still ends the argument against you.

Enjoy.

Alright. As you are going away, let me also summarize my points.


1. On the burden of proof, I believe it rests with you because -

(x) You did make a statement, which is what I am reacting to. You stated that the CA was "junk". I need you to substantiate that, because it is a very bold statement.

(y) Assuming but not conceding that (x) above fails, I contend that the burden of proof still rests with you because causality is in line with common observation. We observe causative chains in all that we see and all that happens around us. Thus anyone who will ask a question in doubt of causality will have the burden of proof on him - as causality is indeed the default position that we know of in material phenomena around us.


2. On Contradictions - I believe you contradict yourself as follows -

(x) You say you accept the law of cause and effect for material phenomena

(y) BUT you then say that we cannot assume that it applies to particular material phenomenon


3. On Assumptions

(x) You accept that in our knowledge and observation, material phenomena are caused

(y) You yet say that it is possible that this may be disproved tomorrow

(z) This indicates that you accept that the argument from causality remains true as we know for TODAY

(zz) You ASSUME that it may become false tomorrow, without having presented any evidence therefore


4. On the Argument from Ignorance which you allege

(x) You accept that causality operates in material phenomena

(y) You state that that is what we know so far

(z) You yet conclude that this is an argument from ignorance

(zz) You thus imply that making statements based on our observatory knowledge is arguing from ignorance: e.g: If I say, "As far as we know, water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen" - since I have said "as far as we know" - your position would mean that this too, is a statement from ignorance. Whereas it is simply the current proven knowledge which we accept until proven otherwise.


5. On The Law of cause and effect and the cosmological argument

(x) You say you accept the law of cause and effect

(y) You yet state that we cannot know the 1st principle of the Cosmological Argument to be true - notwithstanding that it is simply a reference to the law of cause and effect - which you say you accept!


6. On the Part-Whole Fallacy which you allege -

(x) You accept the law of cause and effect for material things

(y) You accept the universe to be material

(z) You then reject the law of cause and effect for the universe!


7. On the inherent absurdity of your position: A beginning connotes that the element referred to did not exist in that form prior. As such it is illogical and unscientific to suppose a re-organization of the form of an element which occurs spontaenously, purposelessly, and with no cause or triggering factor whatsoever. As it happens, the initial expansion called the big bang was at least such a re-organization of the pre existing singularity. As such, it must have required cause.

These only stand to fundamental reason. Thank you.

jayriginal: ^^
I need not give one example when you have not proven your point yet.

Actually you must give an example. If you do not, then you must accept that you are the one making assumptions.

Let me attempt to clarify this point a little bit. In everything, we proceed from what we know and observe. In all that we have observed in material things, we do not see uncaused things magically hapenning around us. We see the laws of nature and physics in operation, and these laws show cause and effect in all things.

As such, it is dishonest to claim, for example, that we do not know of a law of cause and effect. That is surely disingenuous. We do know of a law of cause and effect, just as we know of many other laws which we have observed in the universe. We certainly don't know everything, but saying that we do not know of causality in the material universe is an out and out falsehood. It is a plain and evident fact of reality.

Now, you need to understand that I have no problems with anyone asserting a contrary position. I simply state to you that in so doing, you will be required to adduce proof, because the default position is observed causality.

Refusing to adduce proof, and being starkly unable to produce a SINGLE example of such, after so much jaw-jaw, is just embarrasing.

You have written alot on this thread. It would have been frankly easier to just cite examples or adduce proof. Rather than shirking that obligation - which arose from your suggestion against a default and commonly observed position. And getting all emotional about the issue doesn't help. Just adduce your proof, kind and benevolent sir.

Surely, even you will not dispute this contention which I set forth to you:

1. Any person who challenges a default position must adduce proof against the default position

2. Causality is the default position regarding material phenomena

3. Ergo, any argument for uncaused material phenomena must be proven first

So its very simple and clear: the burden rests squarely with you. Do not shirk it. That would be cowardly, and might I add, unlawyerly! Indeed if the burden did not rest with those who seek to claim that material things could be uncaused, they would never have made the argument about virtual particles in a quantum vacuum!

Now, that is the principal argument that has been made in favour of the idea that things may proceed from nothing, or that things may be uncaused. It is sad that you are not able to comment on the flag-ship argument so far made by physicists, you shy away from "dealing with science", you REFUSE to give an example of your own, and YET you sit back and claim that the other party - who is sticking by known causality - is the one making assumptions! ! !

That is beyond funny, my friend! - People have observed and daily observe causative chains. As such it yet makes sense to assert causality. NO ONE HAS OBSERVED ANYTHING UNCAUSED! - And yet - YOU, who advance the possibility of a question of that unobserved claim - are stating that YOU are not the one making assumptions! Incredible! This beats all imagination, noble and lofty sir!

I also do not need to rely on science per se. I can if I feel like but I am not compelled to.

Yeah, yeah. Escapist. You simply have no science to rely on, and that is why you dribble about on this score. That much is obvious. I am not afraid to rely on science because science centres around causality ab initio.

In fact, saying that you don’t need to rely on science beggars belief because this is a scientific discussion to the extent that we are looking at causality in matter!

You speak of insults yet I am fairly certain that I have only matched your tone throughout this discussion. If you cant take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Speak with respect if you want to be respected. Grow up man. Stop being emotional because your argument is failing.

Yeah yeah. There's been no insults from my side. Stop being so sensitive. Address the points, flip out your example of an uncaused material thing, and I will shut my trap for once. If you cannot do that, then you simply have no case and no point.

I have not denied cause and effect here. Your attempt to make it look so will not work. I have asked you a question and your answer is insufficient. I asked you how you know that the first two premises are correct. Your answer is "as far as we know" from observations.

This is getting boring. Look at this horrendous contradiction. He says he has not denied cause and effect and yet claims that we cannot know that the first premise of the Cosmological Argument is correct - notwithstanding that it is hinged on cause and effect. What astonishing self-contradiction.

Obviously, you have not reflected on that which you so contradictorily advance.

I tire o.

My position is to say that your "observations" are but microscopic compared to the vastness of nature. I also gave examples of past observations that were regarded as truths which have now been either discarded or reviewed.

Merely stating that knowledge has been reviewed or discarded in the past is not enough to assume that all knowledge will be discarded, is it?

You started the disrespect.

Where? Please don't give a dog a bad name to hang it. I advance my position forcefully and in strong terms does not amount to insulting you or anybody, my friend. If people see it that way, I can only conclude they are wetting their pants because of the creeping fear of the inherent absurdity of that which they argue. That has little to do with me, my brother.

This is wrong. I have indeed stated that what is true today maybe false tomorrow and on the basis of that, I have asked how you can be absolutely sure of the first two premises.

I hope you know that this contains a concession that causality remains true today. Thank you for your humility. When it becomes false tomorrow, then and only then can we hear you out. Its falseness must be proven first – which you have refused to even attempt to – for glaring reasons.

It would take a lot on your part to POSITIVELY assert the correctness of the first two premises. Nothing short of omniscience would probably suffice.

Maybe I also need omniscience to know what principles enables an autocar to move?

If you are not absolutely sure then you make an assumption. No matter how likely that assumption seems to be, it is still an assumption. I do not have to provide proof for the simple reason that I am asking YOU to prove yours.

You cant ask me to prove causality because that is what is observed by default in everything and every motion around us. The person who denies it should be the one to prove the denial.

I claimed nothing. It is you who asserts an assumption as fact.

O, the assumption of the laws of cause and effect and laws of motion? If these are assumptions, they are pretty respectable ones.

I am not assuming that principles of causality will be proven wrong tomorrow. I am asking how you know they wouldnt.

I similarly ask you how you know that they will? Or even that they may?

Anything that exists has a beginning. . . Feel free to call this an assumption because by doing so, maybe you will understand what I have been trying to show you.

I tire of telling you that this can only apply to material finite things. It logically could not be otherwise.

If you will add the word “material” to your sentence, it would become more correct, and of course will then exclude anything immaterial.

Capisce?

Surely then, the concept of anything being eternally existing is a product of the imagination and not of observation, logic or common sense.

No, actually, because we observe that reality continues irrespective of our own deaths for example.

But that is not something I should stand firmly on: I should rather tell you that you must realize that if the singularity preceding the universe had not been caused as you say might be possible - then it is uncaused - and therefore does not "begin" - which means that it is eternal in the past already. As such your very own suppositions do show that eternity should not be mere imagination?

I really must say at this point that I am not sure you have paused to contemplate the unceasing nature of infinite time and infinite space. If you had, you would not say that eternity is our imagination. It is rather a self evident continuum.

Well let me ask you this. Does time change ?

No.

Does space have boundaries ?

In my understanding of space – which differs from the model set forth by scientists - No.

This is a fine point: and my meaning when I refer to "boundaries" in answering your question, I think, may differ from your meaning in asking the question. So perhaps it is apt that I ask exactly what you mean by boundaries. For me, I simply mean that space is infinite - and thus - logically open. Only the finite could be otherwise. But please, mark well that I do not see space the same way scientists do. Nor time. We can discuss this further.

jayriginal: Argument from ignorance. Your style of proving god. You engage in intellectual m@sturbation and want to be taken seriously. I think not.
Simply to do some research, you will not. You think you know better than experts in their field dont you ?

We ask you such a simple thing as to give JUST ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE - you have made several posts, and you fail to give ANY example, and yet you ask me to go do research? Lol, bro. You too dey funny. Bring your example to the table sir. If you cannot or will not, I am sorry, all your insults cannot be taken seriously.

You speak about "arguments from ignorance", you seem to get upset very easily. You need to develop a thick skin and face the argument squarely and put aside all the crying and insults - they are not good substitutes for good arguments!

Appealing to ignorance is not going to do the trick. You show your poor grasp of logic therein. The reasoning is quite simple. As far as we know is the only thing you keep repeating. While "as far as you know" may give you reason to consider your proposition, it is no reason for anyone to swallow it whole. You energetically cling to things that support your position whether they make sense or not.

The fact remains that there is such a thing as a law of cause and effect. Indeed, you may not have been attentive enough so far to avert your mind to the fact that the entire realm of science is a probe into causality. If this elementary fact is missing you, then it will indeed be very difficult to understand one another on this matter.

Indeed, an article on science and causality states -

Causality is a basic assumption of science. Within the scientific method, scientists set up experiments to determine causality in the physical world. Embedded within the scientific method and experiments is a hypothesis or several hypotheses about causal relationships. The scientific method is used to test the hypotheses.

Now the basic reason that causality is a basic assumption of science is the fact that science itself is an inquiry into same. There would be no science without causality: everything that is probed is probed from the point of view of the question: what causes this, or what is the rationale for this?

We cannot magically jump out of our common experience and observation and assert things to be otherwise without proof: if you believe that material things in this realm may be uncaused, simply adduce proof for same and stop backing away from that challenge with insults only. It does your position no good whatsoever.

All you have stated since we started this discussion is simply that what is true today may be false tomorrow - and there are no qualms about that - the proof that what we know to be true today is false, simply needs to be adduced, and we will at once embrace the new "truth". You cannot refuse to adduce same and then sit back and ask me to do such! That makes no sense - because I do not believe that material things can be uncaused. Since you believe that such may be possible, then surely you must be the once to prove same or adduce proof, bro. Nothing else will do.

Be a good boy and go on the internet.

As I have stated above, I will do no such thing. You are the one with the fantastical claim against causality, and as you YOU have the responsibility to adduce proof. If you will not, then you ought to slink quietly away with your tail between your legs and have the honesty to acknowledge that you said nothing and proved nothing.

When you meet a physicist who gives you proof that things can indeed exist without causes (I notice how you have been setting up strawmen along the way) take your argument to him. Indeed, you need no degree in any of the sciences to best dedicated researchers.

Oh yes, I need none, as I take great pride in having shot down the example given about virtual particles. I notice you are curiously silent on that. Could you not seize it and use it for your argument? Afterall, the self same "physicists" have used such for same argument - with calamituous results!

Did you break your glasses ? I asserted nothing. I said you do not know that either the first or second premise is true. I put it to you and your response was an appeal to ignorance. "As far as we know". Its a pity you had to start pouting cos we would have gotten to the stage where your arguments would have refuted themselves.

Ok, let me help you here. The phrase "as far as we know" - was simply to rebutt your statement that the CA awas based on assumptions. We do know of causality. We do know the laws of motion. If you seek to call these things assumptions, then YOU have to show exactly why they are assumptions. You have not done so. All you have said is that "maybe tomorrow we may know different". And you call that a serious argument? It simply emerges that you are the one making the assumptions. You are assuming that simple principles of causality will necessarily be proved wrong tomorrow. That is an assumption - and you have yet to table a single reason for it.

As far as we know, NOTHING can exist without having a beginning. I gave the following for your consideration.

Anything that exists has a beginning
(If) god exists
god MUST have a beginning.

This is mildly irritating. I already corrected you on this, and you accepted the correction. And now you are making teh same caricature of the cosmological argument again. You shouldnt do that, because it makes you appear as though you do not have the least understanding of it. To help you again -

AS I SAID BEFORE, the CA does not say that whatever exists has a beginning. It is also NOT true that as far as we know, nothing can exist without a beginning. Precepts of self-existent things are as old as man himself. What is rather asserted is a very common sensical notion that things that begin, have a cause. God is not said to have had a beginning.

The argument simply states that things that begin, obviously have causes. And yes, that only stands to perfect reason.

However, to give you a straight-on and specific answer to what you drew up, let me simply say that this argument naturally applies to the material and finite, as we are speaking about the universe. It would be self-contradictory to apply the finite to the infinite. The infinite cannot be said to have a beginning or end.

You assume contingency of the Universe.

I specifically told you the reason for that. The universe must indeed be contingent because necessary things are constant and immutable. The universe is not. It is therefore not a necessary thing. Simplicita, amigo.

Also, where you sought to counter that by stating that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, I ought to correct you that that is only with respect to a closed system. We do not know the universe to be a closed circuit. This is not proven. I say to you rather that given the fact of its initial expantion (commencement) from the point of a singularity, it is an open circuit.

Deep Sight ? Acute Myopia is more like it.

Steady on, no need to get emotional or all worked up.

Just give me an example of a single material thing which we know surely of as uncaused.

^^^ No need to get all bitter my good man, you can't send me off "to the internet" to do your work for you. I simply asked you to show me an example of an uncaused thing - you have not been able to do that, and you are still asking me to "go do my research?" Come on. That's both lazy and escapist.

Assume I am as ignorant as you say I am. Then do me a favour. Just point to one such thing. If you cannot, you have no case. Simple.

That whatever begins to exist - has a cause - or triggerring factor - is now said to be an "assumption". LAWD.

Make I go sleep jaare.

Odd fella. He has energy to write long paragraphs but claims he has no energy to produce a single example of an uncaused thing he knows of, right? Lol, see escapism in action. And yet I am the one making assumptions. He says maybe things can move without any triggering factor. Just like that. Just move. No cause, no trigger, just dey move like ghost abi? And no proof. And yet I am the one making assumptions. This is toooo funny!

No worries, my good lad! Let's leave it this simple: you say that knowledge grows and what is true today may be false tomorrow, abi? Excellente! I agree with you. You must also agree that what is commonly observed and known today will remain the default position UNTIL it is disproven.

So we will await that day, okay?

So, as for now, as for today, as for 2012, we can safely say that as far as we know, things are caused. So as far as we know, the premise of the CA is true and logical. If it becomes illogical tomorrow, fine. But as for today, it remains logical. And so as for today, you are still the one fantasizing.

We live every single day in a web of causation. You could not possibly type on NL without various causes that enable you to do so. Every single motion observed has a preceeding trigger. IT is beyond absurd to claim that we do not know this. But it is even worse to claim that people who mention the self evident fact of causation are the ones "assumming" things. He who asserts the contrary is the one assuming things. And very absurd things too.

Wake up tomorrow. Enjoy.

^^^ Abeg, you haven't said nada, joor. Prove your points and forget about my personality. Only my wife should be bothered about that. Simple fact is that as we know and observe things around us, we see cause and effect, and thus this is the default position. To suggest otherwise, YOU must give examples of uncaused things and prove same. SIMPLE! and you are wasting time talking about my personality. You have made NO point and frankly the little you have offered has been an embarrasment so far.

Truth is you cannot give an example because there is none. Those who tried to use the example of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum ended up seen as the right clowns that they were. As such, as a reasonable man, you naturally dread a similar fate.

More embarrassing is the fact that the import of my "naturally!" riposte to martian is lost on you.

A supposed logician who advances voodooistic magic such as things magically popping into existence without a cause - contrary to common observation, common sense and common logic! - And yet derides others for staying consistent with common observation and the law of cause and effect. You create a fantasy - that it could be otherwise - without proof - and yawn back at me that I am the one making assumptions. What a laugh.

Assumptions indeed.

What do we mean when we say that something is self-existent? We mean that by its nature it inherently exists. "Existing" is core to what it is. It could not but exist because its very nature is existent. Accordingly such a thing does not "come into" existence, nor does it cease to exist, because existence is inherent to the principle of what it is.

Now let us understand this carefully. A self-existent thing is so because the core principle, the very principle of what it is, is inherently existent. So it is what it is for that reason. Since it is what it is, it is not something that can change. It just is. Constant. A constant and non-ceasing reality.

This is why we say that a self-existent thing is immutable. Its existence is predicated on a principle that is inherently existent and could not but exist and accordingly it cannot but be that principle. Thus it cannot be or become something else because inherently it is that principle. We thus understand that some-thing that self-exists cannot change.

Matter and Energy as we observe them in the physical are changeable. Thus they are not self-existent things

I may further indicate that there is a deeper, more subtle reason why it is obvious that self-existent things are non-physical. Without being wordy, and selecting my words very carefully let me simply say that a self-existent thing being something that cannot be created, thus cannot be something of form and mass. I hope this resonates within your mind.

And so a self-existent thing can not have a form or physical mass as it is an intangible and neceesary, non-contingent reality.

An example of a self-existent thing is eternity. Eternity is eternity. No birth or death of physical universes could circumscribe eternity. It is just there: a constant: eternity. It is not to be confused with the finite time that we use our indicators to measure. Eternity is just a constant. It could neither change nor be created. It is simply the constant vacuum into which things are interpolated.

Every self-existent thing that one may discern is a great key and a great help to understand what God is. Because God is the sum of intangible self-existent realities. The sum of all self-existent law.

^^^

1. Time

2. Space

^^^ Frankly, you did not address either the principles or pith of the argumnents put forward, save to moan about the fact that I am not omniscient. I thus can see nothing in your post of note to respond to.

Yes indeed, we can only root reality in what we know so far. And the fact remains that as far as we currently know, things are caused. As such, the idea that things are uncaused remains your fantasy: until proven otherwise - you are the one fantasizing.

Its a shame that you started this discussion on such a high horse - saying that the cosmological argument is "junk", that you would not bother to discuss it, etc - and yet you have offered a stark nothing in terms of logic or principle to assert your position.

Sadly as well, my meaning in some of the things I said seems to have been lost on you. Such as when I asked about if eternity is something. That question actually answers your question, if only you will task yourself to think about it.

jayriginal: Very good. Correction taken.
My question is still the same albeit with a slight modification.
My main point of interest now is premise 2 ie The Universe began to exist.

I hope this means that you now accept premise 1 to be correct.

Before that I will still ask you how you know that Premise 1 (Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause) is correct.

My dear brother. This issue is very simple. Everything that you see in existence naturally has some explanation (known or unknown). EVEN things that appear magical do have natural explanations. It may be true that the explanations at one point in time or the other may not be known by men, but by very simple commonsense there do indeed exist explanations for everything.

Now there is a reason that this is the case. I hope you understand the philosophical reality that it is impossible for a perfect illogicality to exist. As such, everything that exists naturally proceeds from a reason, a cause or a set of elements or factors that actuate such existence.

When something begins to exist the first thing you need to understand is that by very dint of such a beginning, the logical implication is that prior to that beginning such a thing did not exist in such a form or manner. What that means is that it was caused to begin to exist in such a form or manner for a reason, factor or cause. It is quite ludicrous to suppose otherwise: namely that a thing will suddenly, unbidden, without cause whatsoever, just magically appear from nowhere and for no purpose. To be very honest with you I am struggling to be patient and I am rather shocked that one like you, who shows an inclination towards logic, could suppose that, or even faintly suggest otherwise. It is nothing but the most unreasonable fantasy.

It also becomes more tiresome in light of the fact that it is people just like you, who condemn religious fantasists for their fantasies: when they speak of magical appearances you laugh at them – and you yet make a mockery of your own mockery by suggesting something far more magical, voodooistic, and fantasy driven such as things appearing into existence without a cause! That is the height of black magic. You really need to take a deep breath and pause and ask yourself exactly what you are suggesting. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I gave you an example of an early man throwing things upwards. Surely to that man, it would be illogical to suggest that if he threw an object as far as possible upwards it would not return to earth. Infact, to that man, if he were of a creative bent, he may even examine the thought that it would take an exceedingly long time for the object to return to the ground, but no matter how long, it would still come down. This at that hypothetical time, would be an assertion that he could "take to the bank".

Yes, early man may not have sufficient knowledge about the atmosphere and space; but this is no reason to assert that we cannot know that things do not emerge uncaused.

As far as I am concerned, I will leave you a very simple test.

You claim to be a rationalist, a logic-driven person, right? Logic is driven by that which we observe everyday in nature and in the reality in which we live.

Now here is the test: I task you to point me to ONE SINGLE THING which we have observed in all our centuries in this world and in this existence – which does not have a cause.

Now if you are unable to do so, it would simply mean that your suggestion is out of tune with common observation as far as we know, and mine is in tune with common observation as far as we know.

If that is the case, until you show me the thing that has no cause around you, we will safely assume that you are the one dwelling on fantasy and ASSUMPTIONS whereas I am the one rooting his beliefs in reality as far as we know and can observe.

We will leave it that simple: that is the test I leave for you: if you cannot show me such a thing, then you have no basis for suggesting that the universe itself may be uncaused.

Now I need to know the source of your confidence because to me it seems you are evaluating things in light of your human/logical experience. That will not satisfy me. Remember I talked about assumptions being built into the CA ? The CA is composed entirely of assumptions.
Will you be able to satisfy me that you know these things (as opposed to "intuiting" them? ).

]

As you can see from the above, you are the one imagining things. I am the one basing my suppositions on observed reality. Observed reality is that things as we know them in this world, have causes. If you have observed otherwise anywhere, please show us. If you have not, then UNTIL YOU DO, you have NO BASIS for stating that the observation that things have causes is wrong. That would render you the one who is living in absurd fantasy and imagination, you know?

On to the 2nd premise, how do you know the Universe BEGAN to exist ? Were you there ?

Did the big ba.ng happen or not?

Also can anything really be said to be timeless ? I want you to think about that very carefully. It may be crucial in this discussion (or maybe not).

Is eternity something or is it nothing?

Think about that.

Ok I may be wrong here but I believe matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. We cannot talk about matter without mass can we ? If it did not have mass it wouldnt be matter would it ? I also believe mass can neither be created not destroyed (same as energy).
If this is correct, your x 1-6 fails particularly 5.

Yes indeed, matter changes state. For this exact reason, matter cannot be said to be immutable. Matter is therefore not self-existent because self existent things are both immutable and intangible. As matter is not self existent, it must be caused. Simple, really.

Energy is indeed eternal, and it is the primordial energy that coalesced into matter in the pre-ba.ng singularity. That in itself connotes an open circuit, and not a closed one, as far as the material universe is concerned. However I fear that I am leading you too far here. If you can deal with it though, we can discuss it.

You have to admit that some (not all) unscientific theories are inherently absurd.

Is the theory that things may emerge uncaused out of nothing a scientific theory?

Is it not ridiculously absurd?

In truth, the CA is nothing more than a bunch of unverified assumptions and I would still have said so science or not.

It is in line with common observation and the laws of motion. Your supposition to the contrary is not. Therefore as things stand, YOU are the one making unverified assumptions. It has not been verified anywhere that anything that we know of in this world and this reality commences existence without a cause or trigger, has it? Thus you, and only you, are the one with a truckload of unverified and very absurd assumptions, dear friend.

^^^ Can you just stop this annoying habit of videos and cartoons please? ? ? U no be pikin na.

Martian: of course you shouldn't be intimidated by scientific concepts But keep in my that the people who came up with quantum theory didn't gain their expertise from encyclopedias but from research. You and I can only read and learn about it after the fact because we are not scientists.

Fair comment. I only mentioned my preoccupation whilst in school to convey my inclination to read about things outside my own field of study. For this reason I must certainly question things that are put to me under the guise of science, but which any layman's slight research could show up as very unscientific.

Are you saying Quantum mechanics is false and do you disagree with physicists who said classical mechanics don't work at that level?

I did not say anything is false. However there are many false interpretations of observed phenomena by "scientists" who are desperate to prove some fundamental classical ideas wrong. One such false interpretation is the idea that things may emerge from nothing - a very false interpretation given to the observation of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. It took me only the slightest of reading to show that interpretation up as false: because quantum vacuums are not nothing - and there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

I am a lawyer, not a physcist - I would have had no way to know these if I had not cultivated a habit of reading.

O, and by the way, yes indeed, there are some very fundamental principles that do not break down at any level: be it quantum level or Aso Rock level. One such principle is that whatever BEGINS to exist must have a cause. This is an eternal principle embedded into the nature of reality that cannot and does not break down at any level, be it ogogoro or Henessy high.

It seems whatever confirms your views is good science and what doesn't is false.

Naturally!

I say this because you've opposed mainstream science like evolution and now QM

BE VERY CAREFUL MARTIAN - BE CAREFUL NOT TO MISREPRESENT ME: I HAVE NEVER OPPOSED THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION EVEN ONCE ANYWHERE ON THIS FORUM, AND THAT IS BECAUSE I ACCEPT THE BROAD GENERAL IDEA OF EVOLUTION SO PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE ME OUT OF CONTEXT ON THAT. NEITHER HAVE I TRIED TO FALSIFY QM, I HAVE SIMPLY SHOWN UP THE FALSE INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT "SCIENTISTS' USE IT FOR - FOR EXAMPLE THE VIRTUAL PARTICLES CASE!

but you don't feel the same about the pseudoscientific ideas. In fact, if pseudoscience supports your ideas, you embrace it.

No doubt, here you are referring to my ancient aliens. Please note that I did not advance the idea to you as a fact that I asserted it to be so. I advanced it to you as a possibility to think about. Its and interesting topic. Nor did i use psuedoscience anywhere to prove anything. I tried to ask the possible meanings of ancient artworks, thats all.

Deep Sight: By the way, you should school your self on what the term " Developmental Functions " of the CBN refers to. You have used it to refer to any developmental activity conceivable in the world! LOL. Go school up buddy.

Liquidity Management: The Bank is empowered to carry out market activities including but
not limited to issuing, placing, selling, repurchasing, amortising and redeeming securities, for
the purpose of maintaining monetary stability. This is not new, however under what is newly
referred to as a developmental function the Bank may subscribe to or hold and sell shares
and debentures, for the purpose of promoting and developing not only the capital markets
but also encouraging financial/economic growth and development.

http://www.abududalley.net/publications/CENTRAL%20BANK%20OF%20NIGERIA%20ACT%202007%20-%20SIGNIFICANT%20CHANGES.pdf

You know what, I will just make it easy for you. Here is an extract of Section 31 of the CBN Act which describes what developmental function of the CBN refers to. I am now convinced I am speaking to someone totally ignorant of the issues. Please read for your self - Damn! -

^ ^ ^ This post here ought to have shown Mr. Ndu Chuks his sad ignorance in this matter already!

jayriginal: ^^
Wrong. We think and are taught right from wrong. Man is a social animal. When you do something bad for a selfish reason, because you are a reasonable person, you soon feel remorse.
Do you like dogs ? It might interest you to know some dogs feel remorse too or if they dont, they know when they have been bad and it shows. Man can overcome whatever evolutionary instincts because he is not a slave to them. Whereas things may have been different in the past, now man can think and overcome his base instincts.
The so called conscience comes into play because man is a "higher" animal.

Dont be so quick to jump on any half brained theory because it seemingly supports your notion.

Heading over to Darwins Day now.

Morning bro. Yeah I hear you, but hear me too. Man is indeed a higher animal - and that "highness" was supposedly attained through a process of evolution. That very process is a definitively competitive process in terms of survival. As such, we can moderately say that this may somewhat account for the obvious competitive instincts of man. If we look around the world without blinkered eyes, we will see the obvious malevolent manifestation of this everywhere and everyday. Intractable corruption that kills, and a shocking insensitivity to the common good. The instinct of selfishness and self-preservation STILL takes the lead in this world bro - just look around you and honestly tell me its otherwise.

Thus the more subtle instinct: that instinct and inclination towards unselfish love and the common good: this seems to me something that arises from a nature of man which is not evolution based. It resides in the spirit. Think about it, and honestly tell me I am talking nonsense.

The evolution based nature of man is wildly competitive. Brother go even maud im own brother for se.xual rights over a woman. That is the part of man that is evolution based. Perpetrate my genes. Survive. Dominate. Bro, that is our evolved nature, our evolution based nature. That surely cannot be contested? Hope you see where am coming from.

^ ^ ^ He is simply stating the obvious: namely that whereas you started your input on this thread mocking the legal issues raised, you have not been able to advance a single legal point in rebuttal: you have also shown uncommon misconstruction of basic legal concepts.

Actually there's a good point in there. The "Survival of the fittest" theorem has no place with the phenomenon of conscience. If anything, it should negate it, and Might should surely be right.

[quote author=ndu_chucks]I can find you 6 lawyers who will give me 6 different 'reasonable' opinions about the provision you posted and that will not be good enough to say that anyone of those opinions is correct. The opinion which matters is that of the judge(s) who will make a ruling, i. e. if your case is not summarily thrown out and if you people are not fined for wasting the court's time. Once again, go and convince a judge that the CBN is conducting illegal acts and see how far you get.

I will not ridicule you here with legalese., but I warn you that you are tempting me.[/quote]Abeg dont make me laff. Go and read again the Section 31 that I extracted for you and school yourself on what "developmental functions" means within Central Banking. I have obviously been wasting my time with you. Siddon Joor.

^ Have you now run away, Mr. Chuks? In light of my last post you ought to be admitting certain things by now bro.

Martian: The "scientist" you corrected probably wasn't a physicist. But if you say classical mechanics apply at the quantum level,then that's cool too. Afterall you are a physicist who've dont some lab work on the subject.

Ha, are you being sarcastic. I be lawyer na.

I just will not be intimidated by scientific concepts because while my mates were scaling the wall in Kings College looking for women, I spent all my time in the library reading up the Encycloapaedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopaedia. I am no physcist, but I will not be pushed around with false science.

lol. You [b]love [/b]to say this. People who disagree with you don't quite grasp whatever concept the discussion is about.
But you're right.

On the virtual particles issue, the "scientific" gentleman was clearly out of his depth.

By the way, you should school your self on what the term " Developmental Functions " of the CBN refers to. You have used it to refer to any developmental activity conceivable in the world! LOL. Go school up buddy.

Liquidity Management: The Bank is empowered to carry out market activities including but
not limited to issuing, placing, selling, repurchasing, amortising and redeeming securities, for
the purpose of maintaining monetary stability. This is not new, however under what is newly
referred to as a developmental function the Bank may subscribe to or hold and sell shares
and debentures, for the purpose of promoting and developing not only the capital markets
but also encouraging financial/economic growth and development.

http://www.abududalley.net/publications/CENTRAL%20BANK%20OF%20NIGERIA%20ACT%202007%20-%20SIGNIFICANT%20CHANGES.pdf

You know what, I will just make it easy for you. Here is an extract of Section 31 of the CBN Act which describes what developmental function of the CBN refers to. I am now convinced I am speaking to someone totally ignorant of the issues. Please read for your self - Damn! -