₦airaland Forum

You did not present any evidence sir. You simply stated mentioned differing views and opinions that people have about a SUPREME BEING SAID TO BE THE CREATOR OF ALL THAT EXISTS.

And you acceded that it is possible for people to have differing views and opinions of one person.

So what are you arguing against?

The fact remains that the core attributes are similar: - - -

Deep Sight:
. . . a being that is considered the supreme being, an ultimate and transcendental uncaused cause: a self-existent entity which they all ascribe as being the greatest conceivable existent.

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

YOUR scientific time is a measuring system. Thius referring to it as non-matter would be as absurd as referring to Farenheit or the centimetre as non-matter. No matter how many people have said such, it thus remains absurd.

In this i would want you to recognise that a measurement is not the same thing as the thing measured. For example, I am six feet tall does not mean that 6 feet = Mr Deep Sight. Six feet is a mere measurement of Mr. Deep Sight.

What does your unit of time actually measure. If you can reflect on this, you will begin to understand my concerns.

This may help you -

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[3][4] Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

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

thehomer:
No no no. Deep Sight. I am disappointed. And it's been stated around that you are a lawyer by profession. Please tell me. Does the possibility that a person committed a crime mean that the person actually committed the crime?
Come on.
Please tell me are you unfamiliar with the tactic of granting certain premises to show that a conclusion still would not follow even if the premises were true?

Its very simple. If you grant that there is a possibility that the references all refer to the same entity, why exactly would you begin to argue that it in fact is not the case.

You could only logically argue against it if -

1. You stated it to be impossible

2. You stated it to be possible but have evidence that it is not the case.

- - - Since you stated it to be possible, you should have no probems with those who say likewise.

- - - If you insist it is possible but NOT the case, produce evidence to back that up. In this regard, merely poining out differing attributes is useless. Like you already agreed: differing attributes needn't be a reference to differing persons.

So once you accede the possibility, you then have to show why your position (which is a possibility) is right and the other position (which is also a possibility) is wrong. Remember that both sides have similarities and differences that they can point to: and the core attributes favour the simnilarities.

thehomer:
Non-matter.

1. Non-matter are the direct results of the effect of one physical agent or the other.

NON MATTER EXISTS ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE INTERACTION OF PHYSICAL THINGS.

Can you state what physical things interact to create time?

2. Non matter are all observable. You can see and feel fire as well as wind. You can see your shadow. You can feel gravity and magnetism. Just where does anybody ever see or feel time.

thehomer:
Please point out the contradiction. You shouldn't just hurl accusations left and right.

You first stated that Time is a physical thing. Then resiled from that to state that well, it merely has a physical basis.

It has a physical basis.

Does this then mean that whilst it has a physical basis, it is not itself physical?

The basis is intricately linked to its physical manifestations.

Be direct. You are dancing about stating that Time has a physical basis, physical manifestations etc.

I never asked you the answers to such questions.

I asked you and I ask you again if TIME ITSELF is a physical thing.

thehomer:
This is in addition to what justcool stated
You are mistaken in thinking that only matter is physical.
Let me respond with a few questions to demonstrate this. What is the mass of the electromagnetic wave that vibrates at 500 terahertz with a wavelength of 400 nanometres?
Do you think gravity is physical? What is its mass? What is its molecular particle?
Do you think magnetism is physical? What is its mass? Does it have molecular particles?
So you need to realize that the fact that something is physical or has a physical basis does not mean it must be matter.

Physical things consist of matter and non-matter.

When energy acts on physical things there can be physical movement or reactions of varied kinds and this may result in phenomena which may be classed as non-matter.

•   Wind can be felt on your skin and you can see the wind move branches of trees. But wind itself it not matter. It is the movement of air, which itself is matter.

•   Electricity is similar. You can see the result of electricity at work - a light bulb lighting up for example and you can feel electricity  as an electric shock. But electricity is just the the movement/flow of an electric charge - it is not matter itself. It is the movement of matter (electrons).

•   Sound is the result of air movement against your eardrum and not matter itself.

•   Your shadow

•   Gravity.

•  A flame or fire can also pose difficulties. The smoke that rises up from the fire or flame contains vaporized gases and small particles and therefore contains matter. But the fire and flame themselves, the light and heat emitted, are energy, not matter.

So if Time is physical then it must be matter or non-matter. You have conceded that it obviously cannot be matter, very good.

Can you demonstrate that time exhibits the properties of non-matter?

justcool:
Scientific time is a physical phenomenon; it is a physical quantity.

Phenomenon? Is time observed to "happen?"

I think not. Time does not "happen" in the sense that phenomena are observed to.

2. The term 'physical quantity" really refers to measurement standards by which physcal elements/ phenomena can be measured. So to the extent that people can measure velocity against time, then that will make time a quantity. But this by no means renders time itself physical.

thehomer:
I should clarify by saying that time has a physical basis.

What is this? ? ? Now you are beginning to become totally incoherent and contradictory.

I asked you if time is a physical thing. You responded in the affirmative. Now you revert to "clarify" that it has a "physical basis." Which is it, for Jupiter's sake, Mr. Homer?

I did not ask you for the basis of time. I asked you if time is physical. If it is physical, please identify its physical properties, simple, Mr. Scientist. That should not be too hard for you!

thehomer:
Matter is not the only example of physical constructs.

Please oblige us with examples of non-material physical things then.

While you are at it, do not be clever-by-half. Who talked about physical 'constructs.'

justcool:
@Iden,
I beg to differ. I think your definition is not very scientific. Certain things like emotions, feeling, and even intuition can be observed and experienced. Does this make these things physical? This is just my humble opinion. I don’t claim to be an authority in science, so pardon me for questioning your definition

I have to say it is a most un-scientific definition indeed - specially created to suit his preconceived notion.

@Deepsight
You are slightly off with your first premise (Has weight). Replace it with “has mass”. Physical objects can be weightless; weight actually has more to do with the environment of the object than the object itself. I.e. an object on earth weighs differently than it would on the moon; yet the mass of the object remains the same.

And weight and mass are two different things, although they are related.
But I get your argument.

Yes, thank you, i refer to mass.

Mr. Homer/ Idehn - Show me please what "mass" time has? ? ? ? ?

Pastor AIO:
What remains obvious is that the various pretenders are not the same entity because their attributes differ.

It would have been very comical, if it were not so sad, to see you deliberately leap far above the core and principal attributes of the deity referred to only to base your argument on minor differences in perspective.

It is astonishing how you could ignore the fact that all of these people use those names to refer to a being that is considered the supreme being, an ultimate and transcendental uncaused cause: a self-existent entity which they all ascribe as being the greatest conceivable existent.

It beggars belief that you (especially you!) could toss all these core attributes of the deity concerned into the trash can and then labour over such things as mode of prayer, a black stone, etc (! ! ! !) - which are obviously cultural elements of worship.

2.  Concept - No they are not the same concept.  Allah gets angry, and requires you to worship him in a particular way, ie bowing to a black stone.  Olodumare does not require any specific ritual for worship and he is not subject to various emotions as human beings are.

To say that they are not the same concept simply because of mode of worship and ascriptions of emotion is beyond lame. As I stated before, the core attributes as to what is referred to are what should be cardnal in reaching a determination as to whether they represent a reference to the same entity.

It is staggering that you, who have argued at length for the "staggering similarities" of world religions, would now advance a suggestion that the almost universal reference to a supreme being is a reference to different entities. It is a huge let down that you then base that conclusion on such pedantic differences as mode of worship and emotional appeals! Surely, you are vaster than that, Pastor.

I hope we have arrived at a suitable point to put everyone at rest, and also bring an end to this tedious thread.

Not by a mile.

Idehn:
My definition, a physical object would be simply defined by something that can be observed/experienced in some way and can be defined by said observation/experience.

Well we can all rest assured that that is certainly not the definition profferred by science.

If you seek to prove otheriwise, please show me any peer-reviewed source corroborating your assertion.

Both you and Mr. Homer seek to rely on science: it is therefore most unbecoming and even somewhat duplicituos to suddenly revert to absolutely non-scientific definitions of what physial things are - in a desperate bid to assert that Time is a physical thing.

We all know the properties of matter -

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

If Time is Physical Matter, show me what properties of matter that Time has!

I.E - Does it have weight and volume, does it consist of molecular particles, etc.

Simple!

No need to run about in circles fabricating patently unscientific definitions of physical matter.

^^^ People hold different view, beliefs etc about Aribisala. Does that male Aribisala different people? ? ? ? ? ?

devayid:
Guys there's no bottom to the pit that you're entering. On so many levels its impossible to be specific as each of those particular words Olodumare, God and Allah are interpretations of various things using the constructs of language.

Perhaps they are the same. Perhaps they are simple aspects of the same being/entity/concept. Perhaps they are completely different.

what I do know is that christian missionaries typically looked and look for any god or entity that the locals and natives believe in that equate the most powerful one with the christian god.

the islamists just killed everyone who said otherwise.

Personally, I don't think they originally referred to the same entities/concepts. Now though, who can say. Language defines so much of your thoughts and thought patterns. eg a gay is a cigarette in england but not the same thing in most other places lol. the word refers to vastly different things depending on the context,location,people using it etc.

The indubitable fact still remains that the people who use the words Olodumare, Allah, YHWH and Brahman, all bear in mind a reference to a supreme transcendental being who is the ultimate cause of all existence.

Perhaps Pastor AIO can elucidate on his previous words as they relate to this discussion.

Pastor AIO:
I believe that Jupiter is the same God as Zeus in the same way as Shango is the same God as Zeus and Thor is the same God as Zeus. I was just trying to make the point that the Romans wouldn't have called him Zeus.

Trusted?

What happened to Akpanuduodehehehehehehehehehehe?

Mr. Homer already expressly accepted the possibility that all the references to a supreme being are references to the same entity.

Thus, he wastes time with any further argument.

While you are at it, remember that matter also consists of particles such as atoms molecules, etc. Please indicate what particles time is made of.

Matter further exists in states, namely - solid, liquid, gas, plasma, Bose–Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates and quark–gluon plasma.

Can you indicate which physical state time qualifies as.

thehomer:
Yes time is physical.

Thank you. You say that Time is physical. Surely you are aware of the properties of matter: namely matter -

1 - Has weight

2 - Occupies Space

Please can you tell me whether Time has weight.

Can you also share with me what other properties of physical things that time has, inorder to qualify it as a physical thing.

Keep your answers short and simple as usual please.

Alright. Just a few thoughts now, Mr. Homer.

1. Are you a strict materialist? Before you disturb me asking what that means (even as evident as the meaning is) it simply means someone who believes that only physical (material) things exist.

2. Is time a physical (material) thing?

Mr Homer, are you serious at all?
Any way, i have a few questions for you on the "Time" thread

Enigma:
^^^ In basic terms

"awamaridi" = unfathomable, unsearchable, surpasses all understanding (etc eiusdem generis)

Well that's cool, and thanks.

But doesn't even the xtian perspective denote God as unfathomable, unsearchable, and surpasing all understanding?

Easy on sui generis, non lawyers may not get it!

Enigma:
Indeed, Awamaridi*


* Hmmm, come to think of it, can it be said that Olodumare as awamaridi is a concept not known to Christianity or other religions?

Hi Enigma. Please what is "awamaridi." Cheers/ thanks.

Let us be factual.

thehomer:
If we are limiting the causal chain to the earth, then you need to know that there wasn't really a point in time where there was a single molecule that existed on its own. Think of it this way, as the earth formed, there wasn't a single particle that you could point at and say aha here is the first particle that formed the earth because the earth formed by accumulation of particles that steadily got larger under the influence of gravity. So in this pre-biotic soup, due to the laws of mass action etc, we do not have a single molecule deciding the way things should be instead we have constellations of molecules.

Why deliberately take the example out of context? You are all too aware that I stated that simply to show you that a grand parent cannot be an ultimate cause because he/ she also has causes which caused him/ her to come to exist within the causative chain. I also told you clearly that my refernce to molecules is only a crude example to show you that there are causes more distant than your grand parents.

Now, what is to be noted is this: within the causative chain, those molecules will also have a cause. So we need to ascertain what caused them in the search for an ultimate cause within this world.

There is no need however to belabour an example which is at best crude and could lead us into errors. It is better to state that so long as you have multiple factors, such multiple factors are not an ultimate cause: they will in turn have a cause because an ultimate cause is by definition singular.

In a similar fashion, why could it not be a group of Gods with equal powers? I think you also need to consider that if you're implying a particular entity, ultimate does not necessarily have to be one. It may be a group that decides to act together or it may simply be an invention for ease of discussion.

I am not going to bother myself with the details as to why an ultimate cause must be singular. In pure and strict logic the word "ultimate" is inconsistent with multiplicity. It denotes singularity. Especially within the context of a causative chain. Maybe it misses you that even the big bang is said to commence from a singularity. This is not surprising because anything which is the ultimate commencement point can only be singular. I don’t know how else to break that down for you.

Nevertheless we needn't bother: because you describe yourself as an atheist: and if you wish to make an argument that there may be many gods instead of one god, then that already takes you out of the realm of atheism. Are you now making a case for Poly-Theism? Because if you are, I am comfortable with that: to the extent that it already takes you out of the realm of atheism.

As such I will not bother to argue against your "many-gods" argumentation. I will be comfortable to simply say - okay there are many gods. We are happy with that. That position will still contradict atheism, which holds that there are NO gods!

No. Recall that that example was in reference to tracing origins and the number of entities behind them. The question is how many entities are behind the existence of the universe? Why assume one when there may be none or four?

Please do not attempt to be dishonest simply because the rug is drawn off your feet! You queried what the cause of floating castles are, in an obvious attempt to show that there could be no cause for such a thing for the precise reason that such a thing is not known to exist. This logically shows that you accept that for things to exist, they require a cause. You also insist that time had a beginning. If it did, then it could not be its own cause, as that violates all rules of logic. Thus its cause must perforce be timeless, and that leaves you with a timeless or eternal cause of all things.

This is frighteningly close to my own Deist perspective: and as such I declared that you do not know or properly understand yourself to be a strict atheist.

Aribisala. Pastor did not call you names. His reference to Fela Kuti was a reference to the song "Beasts of no nation" wherein Fela described Political leaders as 'Animals in HUMAN skin." He said that as a referenvce to your comment about the man who believed all Political leaders are Lizards in Human Skin. So lighten up!

By the way, I am now before a proper PC and here is the link i referred to earlier -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371493.0.html

Be sure to read all the contributions. The thread is quite short by the way, so that should be no problem.

Note particularly the contributions of Prizm, M_Nwankwo and Ibrahim B against Rossike's assertions.

Well Aribisala there is no point derailing this thread. I would like to leave you a link though, but i am typing from a pad and I find difficult to post links. Just google these words - do you realize that we do not exist rossike nairaland - and you will find a thread where this matter was discussed extensively. I hope it is useful. Take care.

Both this world and the dream world do exist. Anything that has a nuance or a form no matter how intangible does exist. Even thoughts are real existent things.

If you are concerned that you do not exist, then that is very easily solved. Simply lie down and stop moving or doing anything whatsoever. It would not matter since you probably do not exist.

Has it occured to you that there is a mind here responding to what you post, and that that mind is someone you have not seen. Hell, who knows, maybe i am just a computer program responding to your posts. How do you know that i am not.

^^^ Do you really mean that it cannot exist without a perceived or to be more accurate: that it cannot be perceived without a perceived.

You need to be very careful here. Because the implication of what you are saying is that perceiving a thing is what creates the thing.

Whereas it is trite that many things exist outside that which men have perceived. Sometimes only future generations detect their existence.

In short, such micro organisms as amoeba, viruses, cells etc all never existed until the micro scope was invented to perceive them? I hope you realize that no microscope could have been invented to observe them if those mico organisms which form the building blocks of life did not already exist.

Aribisala. You asked if there is anyway for us to know that the universe exists outside perception. I understand your concern and i answer as follows.

We are indeed limited by perception. However we can perceive certain things which give us to know that other things exist even if we did not perceive those things at the time of their existence. A simple example will be to say that the observation of fossils enables us to understand that dinosaurs existed even at a time that we did not exist in this world to perceive or observe them. Thus, the fact of our absence did not invalidate their existence.

In the same way the Earth exists within a larger universe. Much of the universe was not observed by ancient men, and yet that did not stop modern men from discovering that inspite of it's non observation, the universe has indeed existed for billions of years. In the same way the planet Neptune only came to be observed at a certain point in time, and yet it has existed long before we observed it. It would be absurd to suggest that it only came into existence at the point of it's observation because if that was the case, then it would not be there to be observed at all. A logical conundrum.

What this shows us is that things exist even if we do not observe them. In the same way as your child did steal a cookie from the cookie jar even if you did not observe him do it.

There is a deeper aspect to our perception which I would like to comment upon and which Pastor AIO has already hinted at. There is a God consciousness in every human being which is at the root of his perceptive faculties. In being very careful, i may say that that God consciousness enables man to know and perceive reality and apprehend the things of God and the spirit.

Aribisala. If there was no brain there would be no facts perceived.

This does not mean that the universe would cease to exist. It simply would not be perceived.

As regards the young man, we may say that he is part of a causative chain.

aribisala0:
firstly for our purposes here you need to define what you mean by caused and causation.

A cause is any factor or element which activates another factor or element. Causation is the process or act of that activation. We can work with this definition if it is ok by you.

aribisala0:
if there is no man A or B or no men at all is there a planet??

Surely you are aware that the Earth is many millions of years older than mankind on it. That is a scientific fact. There were once dinsaurs around here, you know. So our absence did not invalidate the reality of the earth's existence even when we were not here to perceive it.

The Earth is also much older than ANY living creature on it. As such the absence of any conscious beings did not invalidate the reality of the Earth's existence.

Same goes for the solar system and the entire universe.

Perception is not reality. Perception is only the cognitive reality of the perceiver.

^^^ No really what I think is cardinal is not just being eternal and "the greatest conceivable existent" - which is shared by all - but cardinally: the fact that they identify and describe it as the creator and source of ALL existence.

Would you then say that in spite of that they are referring to different entities?

Please do note carefully like i said -

- - -regardless that each tribe of course interpolates its idiosyncracies into the ontology of that entity?