₦airaland Forum

^ ^ ^ Lol, this simply means that the CBN can do everything conceivable, including taking over all the functions of every single Ministry, Department and Agency in the Country. Abeg bro, let's not be irrational.

If you refuse to make legal refutations and simply rely on a broad statement about supporting economic development, then I am sorry, your argument is simply a non-starter. Virtually every MDA exists to support economic development in one way or the other. The CBN's role in that regard is well specified - not only by law, but by international banking convention. That is such an unbelievably vague apology that I am thoroughly surprised at the boldness of your initial post on this thread. You mean this is all you have?

I am sure you will also say that "supporting economic development" justifies the CBN wading into Poultry Farming as it did sometime ago under this self same Governor? You obviously have no idea what Central Banking is about!

Abeg bro. Try again. This simply won't wash.

The Universe can be finite and still not have a beginning

And, pardon me, but these are the sorts of ill-informed, hopelessly contradictory statements that make it difficult for me to take some of these folk seriously.

What is the very meaning of the word finite? What is infinite? How does the finte be infinte in the past? And if it were, we would not have a measurable finite universe today. We will have an infinite universe - which is not the case. I am certain you will not endorse this iredeemable and obviously desperate contradiction.

Cosmological Argument

Dr Craig argues that:

Whatever begins must have a cause
The universe had a beginning
Therefore the universe must have had a cause

Not everything that begins has a Cause

However, we know from physics that not everything that begins has a cause. Physical bodies begin to exist all the time without cause. Let’s consider radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, the alpha particle or beta particle or gamma particle that are emitted in a radioactive decay, those particles coming into being, come into existence, begin to exist spontaneously, without a cause. The beginning of the Big slam the universe was like a subatomic particle, so these ideas could apply. Again, I can’t prove it but I don’t have to prove it. Here is one example that refutes Dr Craig’s claim that everything that begins must have a cause.

Is the Big slam is evidence that the universe had a beginning?

But even if everything that begins has a cause, this does not necessary apply to the universe if the universe did not have a beginning. (MY EDIT: Just like GOD is made an exemption)

Dr Craig argues that the Big slam is evidence that the universe had a beginning. However, the universe need not have begun with the Big slam. And I’m not just talking about this one particular speculation from my book. There are many prominent physicists and cosmologists who publish papers in reputable scientific journals proposing various scenarios by which the Big slam appeared naturally out of a pre-existing universe that need not itself have had a beginning. One such recent example is the Cyclic Universe.

Does an infinite universe have a beginning?

Dr Craig also claims that the universe had to begin because if it were infinitely old, it would take an infinite time to reach the present.

However, if the universe is infinitely old, then it had no beginning – not a beginning infinitely long ago. Furthermore, the universe can be finite – and I actually believe that the universe is finite – it can be finite and still not have a beginning.

The Universe can be finite and still not have a beginning

Einstein defined time as what you read on a clock. It’s a number, the number of ticks of the clock. We count time forward time: one, two, three, four, five ticks. We never reach infinitive time. We can also count time backward and never reach minus infinity. The notion that the universe had either a beginning or will have an end are theological notions, not scientific ones.
http://edthemanicstreetpreacher./2009/12/20/craig-stenger-transcript/

My friend, this is simply trying to hard on the part of this person. The centre of his contention is the idea that the universe may not have had a beginning. I will tell you straight away why that is not consistent with pure philosophical logic.

1. Anything that does not require a beginning is thus a self-existent thing

2. Self-existent things are immutable

3. Matter is mutable and subject to change of state

4. Ergo, matter is not self-existent.

5. Ergo, matter, not being self-existent, must logically have a beginning.

6. Ergo, the Universe, being comprised of matter, has a beginning.

Now having said the foregoing I still need to point out that his presuppositions take nothing away from the cosmological argument even with the cyclical model - this is for the simple reason that the commencement of each cycle would still represent an event - a fresh expansion - which clearly cannot be uncaused. When we add this to the twin facts that (x) 1 - 6 above show that matter cannot be eternal in the past as it is mutable and thus not self existent and (y)the cyclical model is absolute speculation at this time - THEN it emerges that this in either event cannot be an argument that takes anything away from the Cosmological Argument.

I need to addittionally mention that it is particularly sad how scientists are quick to condemn speculations of non-scientific theorists, and yet advance adsolutely speculative theories themselves - such as the cyclical model - a completely unproven, and purely hypothetical idea - as a notion that should be taken seriously in contradiction of an argument that rests on such clear simplicity as established notions of cause and effect, as well as the self evidential laws of motion - which is what the cosmological argument rests on.

This then leads the so called scientists to produce damningly unscientific notions such as things emerging uncaused out of nothing - an idea which proper scientists should be the first to call out as pure fantastic and imaginary black magic.

jayriginal: ^^
Alright; fine.

1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist

We do not necessarily know that these first two are correct. It does "sound" correct but we do not necessarily know so.
Only if we accept BOTH premises can we move to the conclusion.
3. The Universe has a cause

Now can you really claim to have absolute knowledge of the truth of the first two premises or you are just going with what your natural experience suggests to you ?

As an example, the early man would have known that anything he throws up would come down (if unhindered). In that light, he would imagine (going by natural experience)that if he could throw an object far enough (like into space) it would still come down. We know better today but he didnt.
Therefore, on what grounds do you hold the first two premises to be true ?

Its simple logic really. It doesn't say that everything that exists has a cause. It says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And that only stands to reason. A beginning of anything certainly requires a triggering factor. Otherwise exactly why would anything "begin." It is very unscientific and very illogical to contest that. The very business of science is to seek out the causes of phenomena, is it not?

Only a thing said to be timeless or eternal can logically be advanced as something that is causeless - for the simple reason that it does not change or move anywhere. If something as much as changes state, there must be a reason for that. This much we can rationally take to the bank.[/quote]

Martian: About Newton's laws of motion,you ignore physicists' claims that classical mechanics don't apply at the quantum level. if they don't, then the last part of the argument falls apart. If you're going to use physics, you should use the type associated with that scale.
Heisenberg principle, quantum foam etc. You should check it out

O we have been down the quantum lane on this forum quite a bit, and it was suggested that virtual particles in a quantum vacuum derive from nothing and have no cause. As I recall it, I had to correct the "scientist" who made that suggestion by showing him that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum and that these vacuums in fact contain low gaseuous pressure.

If you have something to add to that, please say, because it was quite a thorough discussion -

https://www.nairaland.com/393099/evolution-proves-creation/1#6849507

Make sure you check out the post above before reverting please.

As for the uncertainty principle - it has no bearing on, and does not unhinge basic logic on causation. People who think so are running ahead of themselves on an idea that they do no grasp.

Martian: The only people I know who say son are urban new yorkers and posers. You're not from NY and you make sly comments like everyone else, so when you say son, i detect sarcasm. but oh well .

Oh well.

And I'm not riled up, this topic is just one big joke. Ok fam?

This suggests that you believe that EVEN DISCUSSING OR BRINGING UP THE SUBJECT is silly. That is what I find not good: I personally think any idea is up for discussion except the most inane: I do not consider this as such.

No ovex o, we norr go disturb you again with our Aliens.

POTUT: There are several of parastatals and agencies that can repeat the CBN's actions and the result will be chaos and utter waste with no accountability.
What if the Nigeria Communication Commission donated to the erosion control efforts in Anambra State. What will the Ecological Fund then do?
What if the National Population Commission donated to victims of flood in Lagos?

Excellent point. This is very simple indeed. Every statutory body has a budget - just like the CBN does. If Sanusi's defence is to be accepted, then every Statutory body can do the same "as CSR."

I REPEAT: It is absolute anarchy in government.

[quote author=ndu_chucks]You should know that the bolded is subject to interpretation and must not be read literally. I'm afraid I do not agree with your own interpretation and the courts have sided with interpretations contrary to yours in numerous cases. I've already told you that I will not use legalese to debate this issue. Someone mentioned that a lawsuit has already been filed. You will see how quickly the case is thrown out of court very shortly. I will not bore NLers by attempting to litigate the issue here. Quoting a portion of the CBN act verbatim and assuming that the quoted text is not subject to interpretation is frankly disappointing.[/quote]There are rules of interpretation that govern the interpretation of legal statutes/ documentation. They are called the Literal Rule, the Golden Rule and the Mischeif Rule. As a general rule, when the text is unambiguous, the literal rule is adopted. The text in this instance is absolutely unambiguous. Therefore the literal rule should apply, and it is hardly open to interpretation.

What is genuinely dissapointing is for you to completely ignore the cited laws and refuse to offer what you consider to be the alternative interpretation which supports your view.

I asked several questions - you have not attempted to respond to any single one of them? You have only produced lists of previous grants many of which are obviously illegal and misdirected. Imagine the CBN building Police Posts? ? ? Does that sound right to even you? ? ?

Ah ah, you mean say dis ting still dey pain you? abeg make u develop deep skin if you wan survive for NL.

Lol, Okay.

@ Ndu Chuks -

It appears you did not read my response to you above. I have explained from the CBN (Establishment) Act that the incidental powers of the CBN are specifically limited to such acts as are incidental to its specified duties. Thus, all the things you mentioned such as the CBN building Police Posts are obvious irregularities and outrightly illegal.

See Section 32 of the CBN Act.

If you can contradict that, please let's have your points. There is no point producing long lists of things that have been shown to be illegal under the law.

You said in your opening post that I was some ill-schooled law student. I think you should be able to educate me on what exactly makes the laws I have cited wrong? If you cannot do that, then frankly you have made no point whatsoever and we can then see the level of "sophistication" (absent) in your argument.

So instead of producing lists, address yourself to Section 32 of the CBN Act.

Addittionally, can you do some reading up on CSR and tell me if it is an appropriate response from Sanusi? As I told you, CSR is for business driven private corporations. I urge you to deny or contest this?

Finally - answer for me whether or not there is a lawful procedure and a lawful agency lawfully empowered with lawfully appropriated funds to deal with these things? If there is, why do we have a Central Bank side-stepping the lawful procedures to undertake these things sir?

Please address yourself to the issues.

^ ^ ^ Oh dear. I really thought there was something riling you up. So that was it? Come on. That expression is just a fond English way, pretty much like the way they refer to people as "mate." Just a spin i picked up while in England - nothing even about seniority, your peers will refer to you as that conversationally - "Listen Son", "Take care son" "where u at son". . . .its just the way. Nothing sarcastic there, son, so please Calm down son.

jayriginal: ^^ You are tempting me.
Anyway, I think there is in one of the threads. It may not have been dwelt on extensively but I seem to recall it being mentioned. If its not in the Banom v Deep Sight thread, it may even be on a thread started by someone else. Those threads together give a picture of your ideology (except there have been some undocumented changes).

Actually going through the threads I can see that naturally, my views today have evolved from some of the things I said back then. Not changed altogether - but there has been some evolution.

Also I still do not see anywhere where creation ex nihilo was used to unhinge the cosmological argument. Since this gentleman here in the video has done so, I wish to absoilutely state that I regard it as a mis-footed rebuttal for teh simple reason the "begin to exist" does not necessarily refer to creation ex nihilo, as he claimed. Secondly it needs to be known the there are many phrasings and re-phrasings of the argument but the central theme is about a commencement requiring a cause. The big ban.g as an event remains a commencement as thus that event requires a cause under the laws of motion. For me, this is quite solid reasoning.

I use the cosmological argument and the laws of motion to assert the requirement for a cause: I personally do not use same argument only, when going further to describe what that cause must be. For that, there are other arguments.

^ ^ ^ U probably also think nothing of the fact that the flood "myth" appears in legends across tribes all over the world. No worries son. Like I said. I accept I cannot argue it with you, since it makes no sense to you to even keep to the principles we agreed on for this discussion, you also contradict yourself by stating that aiens probably exist, but then you say that we must never consider them as an explanation for anything. Abeg, I don free you, you sef free me, make I rest.

ndu_chucks:
When Sanusi bailed out bank and sacked some thieving bank MDs, the usual suspects were screaming that he overstepped his bounds. A lawsuit challenging CBN ans Sanusi was filed and we all know that CBN won that case. Sanusi's donation to Kano state was essentially a grant, the bulk of which is to be used to rebuild the police stations and other government offices destroyed by BH.

There are still cases in court regarding those matters.

Let's be factual. I am basing my points as far as I know it, on the legality of such an action. It is far outside the realm and purview of Central Banking. And I have stated my reasons for stating so.

Now you simply replied by giving me a list of grants made by the CBN. My brother it is either you want to live in a lawful country or you want to live in a lawless country. All I am doing is pointing out to you the position of the law. And if you seek to rebutt that which I am saying then you should do so based on the law - you should be able to point me to something which I have missed in the CBN Act, which will show that the CBN does indeed have the power to make such donations.

As regards the list which you gave of CBN grant, the simple fact is that this is already addressed in my opening post. Section 32 of the CBN Act gives the CBN incidental powers - but it specifically mentioned that such powers are to be incidental to, or consequential upon its duties. As such, since emergency relief is ab initio not part of the CBN's powers and duties - then making donations in that regard is naturally not incidental either to or consequential from its duties or powers. This is very plain and simple reasoning.

The same applies to your list. Any thing therein that is not incidental to or consequential from its Central Banking duties is plainly ultra vires (beyond its powers). This is the simple fact of the matter, but the pity is that Nigerians as a people are not given to the letter and spirit of the law. We are rather given to sentiments.

Again I ask you, even commonsensically - the CBN is the banker and trustee for our collective wealth. There is a process for determining how we expend that wealth. Is it proper for the CBN to step out of that process and begin to issue funds to activities that the FG has already earmarked a budget for under specific statutory parastatals - in this case NEMA? If the CBN does so, we should be prepared for the CBN to handout donations at every instance of a crisis - be it a plane crash, militant attacks, armed robbery, floods, the list is endless. At the end of the day we will tow the line of illegality and end up with a badly mis-focused Central Bank which would be running around catering to things that are the responsibility of OTHER specific statutory bodies. I say again that this is anarchy in government.

As I stated earlier, the CBN has donated 100s of millions in grants to several bodies and even individuals. If you call the Kano donation charity, then the other grants will also be classified as charitable donations. Once again, if you people as sure of yourselves, file a lawsuit and see how far you'll get. My guess is that the lawsuit will be thrown out promptly. There is more to litigation than juvenile analysis and emotionalism which are race based and tribal based at their cores.

You see, this is where you really need to weigh your comments very carefully. I don't know if I will pass the test of locus standi inorder to file a lawsuit. The legal principle requires me to have suffered a personal injury or loss, or be about to suffer such, before I can have the personal right to sue. I don't know what position the court may take on that - there are cases where it has been held that a citizen can sue over such where the common good is affected, and so its not inconceivable. Nevertheless the point I need to draw out for you is that there are proper parties who should take this up. Primarily the National Assembly, in my view, but yes, it should also be looked into by the Presidency. Unfortunately I don't know the quality of the legislators we have. Last time Sanusi went before them on an issue of legal powers ofcourse he was able to easily bamboozle them.

Finally, I would urge you to face the facts and the points made and rebutt them one by one. Yes, go legalese, because this is a legal matter. If I have asserted that his actions are illegal and you dispute that, you should make your disputatiuons based on the law as I did. There is no need for you to assume what my intentions are - speaking about ethnic bias and all that is unnecessary - because I did not raise that. Many commentators have raised that and they may or may not have their biases - that is none of my concern. You simply should not put that to me because I never raised it. I based my disputations on the law, and also on common logic therefrom.

^^^ But there is a different spin to every discussion. For example, no one in any of those threads raised an issue about the Cosmological Argument being faulted on grounds of creation ex nihilo.

^^ Make rebuttals of the points. That's the proper way to discuss issues.

^^^ There are zillions of african myths about gods descending from the sky, my friend.

Dont worry yourself. I concede defeat. To the extent that nothing i say can make sense to you.

^^^ No need to seek attention bro, I only gave it that title to show that I intended my piece to be from a legal point of view mainly. If the title offends you, no wahala, I can make it simply - "A response to". I am not seeking anybody's attendtion. I dont need it.

It would be better if you simply present contrary points instead of insulting me, don't you think?

PS: Title amended. I want no insults. I no dey find work. Thanks.

If you missed the point on the wandjinina, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that. I maintain that your post argues my case for me. Anyway, I don give up. I don surrender. So lef me.

^^^ Alright. Gotcha. No worries.

But vitriol? Where? There has been no vitriol.

I dey o! Thanks! That was fast.

This new format is hurting my eyes. I also cannot see on peoples handles if they are online or off.

Mods please transfer this new thread to the Politics section as I accidentally posted it here -

https://www.nairaland.com/892617/lawyers-response-funke-aboyades-defence

I should add, however Mrs Aboyade wrote in her column today that she was playing the Devil's advocate and attempting to instigate debate. I sincerely hope that is the case, and of course, if that is the case, I happily reserve my comments above. But I must add that playing the devils advocate on such a matter has its pitfalls - it could very well encourage SLS in such acts of illegality.

I just read today's papers and I came across the write-up by Funke Aboyade regarding the N100 million naira donation made by the Central Bank of Nigeria to the Kano State government following the unfortunate terror attacks in that city of recent. Although I have not read the original article, I gleaned from the response published today that Miss (Mrs?) Aboyade appeared to have defended the donation as acceptable under the CSR remit of the CBN. Let me say straight away that the CBN has no such remit.

Nigeria is quite a lawless society - and when grave legal wrongs occur, in many instances they tend to be swept under the carpet in a hail of sentiment. This will not help us as a society and it will also set very dangerous precedents.

1. The CBN has no statutory powers to make donations. Please refer to Section 1 & 2 of the CBN (Establishment) Act. The Act is very clear on the role and function of the Central Bank. Even the Incidental Powers granted the bank under Section 32 of the Act very specifically limit such to "such things as are incidental to or consequential upon the exercise of its power or the discharge of its duties under the Act." So it is very clear that any incidental actions that the CBN takes must be incidental to or consequential upon its very specific duties as stated under the Act. It therefore has no "random" powers beyond that stated. The provisions of Section 162 (10) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic should also be of interest to you in this regard. It defines what receipts of funds means - and the preceding sub-sections state how ALL funds of the Federation should be treated.

2. The CBN is banker to the Government: and as such although it is independent it cannot usurp the functions of the Government. It must be guided by proper laws on appropriation of funds in exercising its functions. In this instance the Government has agencies such as the Nigeria Emergency Management Agency whose proper remit relief efforts of the Kano sort should be. The CBN cannot unilaterally impose its funds on an activity for which there is a statutorily responsible agency in existence - an agency which has a budget already dedicated for such purposes. Such is both illegal and mindlessly irresponsible. It is also representative of anarchy in government. You might soon find the CBN taking over the functions of other government agencies.

3. It is a gross abuse of Administrative Powers. The role of a Central Bank is well defined. It is NOT a charity and it is very dangerous as a precedent to permit it to go about making donations. Who limits the quantum of the donations? Does the CBN have a budget for donations, or is such decided as the spirit directs? What would you say if the Governor now makes it a practice to issue such donations every time we have the now-very-often crisis situations in all nooks and crannies of the country. What criteria will be used to determine which crisis will get donations from the CBN and which will not? Will it be as the spirit directs again? If there are accidents or other mishaps such as plane crashes, armed robberies, militant attacks, etc, should the CBN rush in to donate monies to all such incidents? Is the CBN a parallel government? And haven set the precedent, why should the CBN not continue to do so? Where are the limits? This is a VERY dangerous precedent indeed.

4. It is a mis-application of the principle of Corporate Social Responsibility. I stand to be corrected that CSR does not apply to a statutory body of statutory functions such as the CBN - because its functions are strictly regulated by law. If you think it does, then you should be equally fine with every other public statutory institution making similar donations as "part of CSR". See where that will get us!

I state to you in very clear terms that CSR is for business-driven corporations and not for statutory institutions such as the CBN - Read here –

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

- and as such it is absolutely inappropriate for either Mrs Aboyade or the CBN Governor to use that term as a defence for the donation. It simply means that neither Mrs Aboyade nor Sanusi know what CSR is, and Sanusi is clearly ignorant of its meaning, context, purpose, relevance to business strategy, and of the sort of organizations it applies to.

You see, the problem is that the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria happens to be a very impulsive man. I am not in the school of Nigerians who regards him as a good choice for the role. He would fare better as Head of the EFCC or some other such fire-brigade organization. This is because Central Banking requires somber thought, extensive reflection and a measured approach, all of which Sanusi is terribly, astonishingly and tragically lacking in.

I have cried and cried about the brazen illegality of the issuance of N620 billion to the failing banks at the time that he took that measure. That patently illegal measure was allowed to stand - and again, it is a most dangerous precedent - for in one fell swoop the CBN Governor arrogated to himself the right to create liquid assets of the Federation - and unilaterally issue same assets to whomsoever he pleases. And this was done prior to the establishment of AMCON. This is unheard of anywhere in the world. As you are aware, similar bail-out exercises were carried out by almost every Western Government in the same period. There is NOT ONE SINGLE COUNTRY where it was done without the prior and explicit imprimatur of Parliament - EXCEPT Nigeria. This is naturally so, because Parliament holds the powers to appropriate funds. There is nothing in the CBN Act that supersedes or overrides this. The specific provision of the supreme law - the constitution - is that ALL MONIES derived (howsoever) by Nigeria proceed into the Federation Account and are properly appropriated by Parliament or by applicable laws. Sanusi therefore could not seize parliamentary prerogative as he did. But this is Nigeria, we have air-headed parliamentarians - and they could not protect their lawful turf - but at all events, such must not be permitted to happen again.

Principally, it was a bad precedent - and in the same way, this spree of donations is also a mis-advised and very bad precedent as well. Mrs Aboyade would do well not to encourage Sanusi Lamido Sanusi along the path of blatant disregard for extant laws - a path which he has so far been fervently devoted to.

^^^ Jayriginal,

I thank you for transcribing - however you should understand that in light of your comments that "the cosmological argument is junk", and that there exist many rebuttals, you can see how it could be assumed that the rebuttal you transcribed was one you agreed with. Nevertheless - a statement such as calling the argument "junk" is a very weighty statement and you need to manfully defend such a statement. It wouldn't be worthwhile if i made similar statements and then stoutly refuse to give reasons for such statements. Thus I can only see in your reticence a fear of not being able to sustain the very bold assertion you made earlier, calling it "junk".

Deep Sight: There we are. I absolutely knew your reticence on this matter would only lead to very flawed understanding and presentation of what the cosmological argument actually asserts. As it happens, the transcript you have provided is little more than a caricature of the argument.

As follows -



The argument says nothing about creation ex-nihilo - and creation ex-nihilo is only falseful imposed on the argument by whoever you are transcribing from. For something to "begin to exist" does not translate necessarily into creation ex nihilo. A cigarrete begins to exist from the moment it is fully formed in the Tobacco factory. That does not mean it was created ex-nihilo. It simply means that it came to exist, it began to exist as the thing that it NOW is, from the time that it was formed - and from whatever it was formed from.

Now the fact of the the matter is that the universe did have a beginning as we know it - it began with the initial expansion which is called the big b.ang. It is futile to attempt to argue, as I know you will - that the pre-existing singularity was infact the universe - and as such there was no beginning for the universe. The reason such an argument falls flat is simply the fact the the singularity was at best just that - a singularity - and certainly not a universe. A universe is exactly what we see of the cosmos today - and we named it just that exactly because it is the compound field of cosmic bodies which is the universe.

The pre-existent singularity was just that - a singularity - and NOT a universe. Arguing otherwise stretches logic on its head. Indeed i should point out to you that NOBODY actually knows what excatly that singularity was or comprised of. We only have conjecture regarding what it might be. So this is another reason why you cannot state that the singularity was the universe.

Thus you need to understand that the comical rebuttal above falls (x) because the cosmological argument is not necessarily an argument for creation ex nihilo as I have shown you and (y) The universe indeed BEGAN to exist from the moment of the initial expansion called the big ban.g.

Now as I earlier said, and as acknowledged even within the inchoate attempt at a rebuttal which you transcribed above, there is the law of cause and effect. Nobody - and certainly not any one who claims to be scientifically minded - accepts that there can be effects without causes. That is the height of irrational claims. As such, it is self evident that the initial expansion called the big ban.g - which was an event that BEGAN to happen, surely had a cause, or triggering factor. It could not be otherwise, given the laws of motion.

I hope you see in this already that even if I were to accede that the singularity was already the universe (which I by no means accede) - it still remains that the EVENT of the initial expansion called the big ban.g was an EVENT that BEGAN to happen at a point. And as such, it requires a cause, or triggering factor. For the singularity could surely have sat there of all eternity - as, in the mind of the scientist, it must have done already - and what exactly triggered its expansion - the expansion which then formed what we call the universe?

So I hope you can already see that you are making grave presumptions. You seize upon an ill-thought out video rebuttal - a very poor attempt philosophically - an attempt absolutely lacking in depth or rigour, and you gleefully advance such to ME, as your rebuttal of the cosmological argument? That will not wash: its altogether a non-starter as you can see: the very first premise which he so woefully sought to rebutt remains firmly standing as a perfectly correct premise.

I also need you to understand and grasp the over-arching importance of the distinction between necessary elements and contingent elements with regard to the cosmological argument. That is far more pertinent than the mis-footed question of creation ex nihilo. By they way, there is no such thing as nothing in existence anywhere, as nothing = 0[zero].

So start again fella. I think you need to climb down your high horse in this matter as there is clearly no reason for you to be on one in the first place.

@ Jayriginal - in addressing this you need to prove to me that the cosmological argument refers to creation ex nihilo. If you cannot do that, your transcribed rebuttal collapses into a doomed black hole right from its very first attempt.

Thanks.

jayriginal: Also get ready for 0+0=0, and 0+1=1

You have to show me that either of these equations is mathematically false, before you get on with the sarcasm.

There we are. I absolutely knew your reticence on this matter would only lead to very flawed understanding and presentation of what the cosmological argument actually asserts. As it happens, the transcript you have provided is little more than a caricature of the argument.

As follows -

190. jayriginal:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The Universe begins (sic) to exist
3) Therefore the Universe has a cause
4) This cause is a god

The phrase begins to exist refers to creation ex nihilo; creation from nothing. This contrasts with creation ex materia; creation from pre-existing matter. The problem with proposing creation from nothing is that for a cause to be a cause, it has to act on something. To have an effect, there has to be something there to be effected. A cause acting on nothing to produce something, is a magical explanation.

The argument says nothing about creation ex-nihilo - and creation ex-nihilo is only falseful imposed on the argument by whoever you are transcribing from. For something to "begin to exist" does not translate necessarily into creation ex nihilo. A cigarrete begins to exist from the moment it is fully formed in the Tobacco factory. That does not mean it was created ex-nihilo. It simply means that it came to exist, it began to exist as the thing that it NOW is, from the time that it was formed - and from whatever it was formed from.

Now the fact of the the matter is that the universe did have a beginning as we know it - it began with the initial expansion which is called the big b.ang. It is futile to attempt to argue, as I know you will - that the pre-existing singularity was infact the universe - and as such there was no beginning for the universe. The reason such an argument falls flat is simply the fact the the singularity was at best just that - a singularity - and certainly not a universe. A universe is exactly what we see of the cosmos today - and we named it just that exactly because it is the compound field of cosmic bodies which is the universe.

The pre-existent singularity was just that - a singularity - and NOT a universe. Arguing otherwise stretches logic on its head. Indeed i should point out to you that NOBODY actually knows what excatly that singularity was or comprised of. We only have conjecture regarding what it might be. So this is another reason why you cannot state that the singularity was the universe.

Thus you need to understand that the comical rebuttal above falls (x) because the cosmological argument is not necessarily an argument for creation ex nihilo as I have shown you and (y) The universe indeed BEGAN to exist from the moment of the initial expansion called the big ban.g.

Now as I earlier said, and as acknowledged even within the inchoate attempt at a rebuttal which you transcribed above, there is the law of cause and effect. Nobody - and certainly not any one who claims to be scientifically minded - accepts that there can be effects without causes. That is the height of irrational claims. As such, it is self evident that the initial expansion called the big ban.g - which was an event that BEGAN to happen, surely had a cause, or triggering factor. It could not be otherwise, given the laws of motion.

I hope you see in this already that even if I were to accede that the singularity was already the universe (which I by no means accede) - it still remains that the EVENT of the initial expansion called the big ban.g was an EVENT that BEGAN to happen at a point. And as such, it requires a cause, or triggering factor. For the singularity could surely have sat there of all eternity - as, in the mind of the scientist, it must have done already - and what exactly triggered its expansion - the expansion which then formed what we call the universe?

So I hope you can already see that you are making grave presumptions. You seize upon an ill-thought out video rebuttal - a very poor attempt philosophically - an attempt absolutely lacking in depth or rigour, and you gleefully advance such to ME, as your rebuttal of the cosmological argument? That will not wash: its altogether a non-starter as you can see: the very first premise which he so woefully sought to rebutt remains firmly standing as a perfectly correct premise.

I also need you to understand and grasp the over-arching importance of the distinction between necessary elements and contingent elements with regard to the cosmological argument. That is far more pertinent than the mis-footed question of creation ex nihilo. By they way, there is no such thing as nothing in existence anywhere, as nothing = 0[zero].

So start again fella. I think you need to climb down your high horse in this matter as there is clearly no reason for you to be on one in the first place.

jayriginal: I am really reluctant to go on another wild goose chase. I am pretty sure that you know about the cosmological arguments and the rebuttals. If I felt like there was a chance of teaching you anything, I'd happily delve into it.
As it is, we are probably going to end up going round in circles.

This simply sounds escapist to me.

The cosmological argument is junk.

What a grand assertion, made without a single line of a rebuttal. You are very diligent and hardworking, sir.

You may make a case for god, but you can hardly do it with logic.

The existence of God is a logical and empirically verifiable construct.

Ok, 3 votes so far and all are against the new NL. Seun please take note of the final result of this poll, and put it on the front page so more people vote and then you will get a proper sense of what your market thinks.

Please vote yes or no to the new Nairaland, so that the Site Admin can guage the democratic pulse of Nairalanders and hopefully be advised by the majority point of view. Vote in the POLL above please.

Personally, the new NL hurts my eyes.

mazaje: Deepsight have you watched the video i posted, it addresses the some of flaws of the kalam cosmological argument. . . .

Sorry I cannot watch the video. You can post the rebuttals here in written form and I will read them.