₦airaland Forum

Back to the topic. . .does the universe have any need for the development of sentient beings within it?

If it doesn't, why does the evolutionary process tend to have produced sentient beings.

What is the use of sentient beings.

Inesqor -

Okay, no problem.

You will agree though, that once a sharp difference is noted as I noted above, it is apt to point it out.

All that you need do is to state - "I have changed my view" - and nobody will hang you for that.

It is rather presumptuous to expect people to magically know that you have changed your view on a specific matter such as the definition of religion.

thehomer:
I don't just state that the religious person is wrong. I also give reasons why. As to the right answer, for all I know, there may simply be no right answer. But, we may be able to identify wrong answers.

This is a staggering contradiction. For if you state that "for all you know, there may be no right answers" then it is inconceivable for you to refer to any answer as wrong. That is logically inconsistent.

Furthermore, your musing to the effect that there may be no right answers reflect two things (1) Lethargy - you are unable to task yourself to vigorously pursue the right answers which do exist and (2) Severe Confusion - you are unable to discern right answers from wrong answers and yet you set yourself up as a judge as to the "rightness" and "wrongness" of the views of the religionist? Beyond bizzarre, and absolutely self defeating.

I do provide answers of my own when they are requested as I have done on this thread and others.

So I ask again: provide me an answer: Why something instead of nothing?

You stated that "something" may be the default state. That is a horribly lazy answer again, and frankly I am getting tired of this laziness: For the question remians unanswered - WHY IS SOMETHING THE DEFAULT STATE? WHY IS NOTHING NOT THE DEFAULT STATE.

That is the question, sir.

'Something' may simply be the default state of universe-like objects.

Question - begging. Why could nothingness not be the default state?

You commit a terrible act of hypocrisy in this: for you are willing to state that the universe "simply exists" and that is a "default state" - and yet when this self-same proposition is tendered to you regarding God, namely that it simply exists in a default state, you swing into an sin assembly of an infinite regress, demanding to know who created God, notwithstanding that God is not said to be created.

Why do you advance the infinite regress question, and yet suggest that the universe could be exempt from such a query - stating that its existence could be the "default state"? ? ?

Since you ask infinite regress questions such as "what created God" then logically and fairly you must also ask the same question regarding the universe! - Unless you seek to make a special pleading - the very thing you accused me of! ! !

It is therefore absolutely untenable for you to advance the proposition of the default state and then turn around to ask others infinite regress questions. That is plain duplicity.

The fact is that based on what we do know, this universe started with expansion from a very hot and very dense state.

What brought about that state?

Is it logical to you that "hot and dense states" simply pop into existence from nothing, by nothing, and of nothing?

I should also ask you to define what a "singularity" from which the universe began to expand, is.

I state to you that you cannot define or describe it.

And I further state to you that if you do manage to define it, in that instant you would simultaenously subscribe to the existence of God.

Why do you assume that there must be 'nothing'?

Why do you assume that there must be "something" (matter, ha!) - much less by "default?"

Do you think that infinity exists in this universe?

I DEMAND of you that you tell me INTO WHAT the universe is expanding? ? ?

No I cannot. For all I know, it may be based on unknown laws and interactions but whatever it is, we simply do not know at least not yet. This does not mean you are free to plug this gap in our knowledge with whatever you like and call it God.

I am not making an argument of the Gaps.

It amuses me that you fail to see that what I am advancing is the Cosmological Argument.

You have acceded that there must have been a cause. You have stated that you do not know what that cause is. Perhaps however the Cosmological Argument (in red below) and the further deductions i draw (in blue below) may give some few pointers regarding the nature of that cause.

Definition: By God, we mean that the universe was created by an entity. That entity is what we refer to as God. Godship is defined as being the First Cause, Prime Mover, and maker of all existence.

Cosmological Argument

  1. The Universe is not eternal in the past: the Big Bang shows that it began at a point.

  2. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

  3. The Universe is something, and it began to exist at a point.

  4. The Universe therefore had a Cause.

  5. The Cause of all existence can only be something that is its own cause: in other words, something that is self-existent. A self existent thing exists by default, and as such does not "begin" or "commence" or "come into existence" at any point, but simply IS. A self-existent thing is accordingly immutable.

   6. "Creator" is the equivalent of the term - "Causative Factor" - or "that which makes something happen". This seals the argument on creation, as the Cause = the Creator (Or "First Mover."

  7. The Cause of the universe could not bequeath features that it does not have itself. (This is obvious within sciences such as genetics).

  8. Every feature inherent in the Universe (including Life, Intelligence, and Power AND EVERY OTHER FEATURE) is therefore also contained within the Cause (Creator).

  9. Therefore, the Cause (Creator) of the Universe, is Living, Intelligent, Powerful. . . and manifests every other attribute evident within the universe.

  10. . . . . . . . The composite Image is complete and emerges as the definition of God.

Like I said, 'something' may simply be the default level of universe-like objects.

So why is this statement immune from the counter-argument of an infinite regress.

Why can we not ask - as you ask of God - "where did the something come from?"

You deploy the same argument to seek to bar me from deploying.

And I state to you that only intangible and immutable things can be said to be self-existent.

Matter is neither.

This explanation goes against our knowledge of physics as Einstein was able to demonstrate and we have been able to verify experimentally, that time is not a constant but varies depending on the strength of gravitational force. This concept is much clearer when the dimension of time is also bound with that of space forming a single dimension of space-time.

I repeat to you that it is the experience of time that Einstein was able to evaluate, and the motion of bodies and light within time and space.

Time itself, is an absolute intangible constant, and cannot be seen to begin or end anywhere.

Can you show me a place where time begins or ends?

It is obvious to the calm mind that the statement "time began with the big bang" - makes no sense whatsoever abd it self-contradictory.

Here -

Check out the words -

"Time began. . ."

Stop for a moment and reflect. The first word contradicts the second word. The moment you use the word "begin", you are already refering to a moment within already existing time.

Going further, the calmly thoughtful mind can easily discern that what ever eternal state in which the "hot dense singular point" is said to have existed in, it began an expansion at some moment.

Since this is the case, the very existence of that moment naturally infers that the dense hot point had existed prior to that moment.

The existence of the dense hot point prior to that moment of expansion is an existence in time, otherwise, we could not even use the word "prior"  - and the dense hot point would not even be said to exist at all!

In this you can see that there is no circumstance without time. Time simply is.

It is the experience of time, and the behaviour of bodies and light within time that you can analyse the way Einstein did.

As long as one is in this universe, time for that person started with the Big Bang. Do you have some sort of access to some other time outside of this universe? Or do you wish to claim that time is infinite?

Yes, time is an infinite constant: it is: it does not cease: it remains an intangible reality.

When you say "time for that person started with the big bang" you unwittingly acknowledge that there is time by itself, and then there is what that one person's perception of it may or may not be.

I am surprised you do not see that the very word "started" connotes a commencement at a point in time.

What you are referring to is our measurement of the age of the universe, not TIME itself as an intangible concept.

I already explained this in my previous post. Time and space as we know it began with the expansion of this universe.

Then please tell me what the universe is expanding into?

Another "I don't know" on this one will just be too sad.

Because if you do not know, you should end the chit chat right here and now.

We know this because the space within the universe is expanding and time expands with it.

Demonstrate the expansion of time.

I repeat to you that it is the behaviour of bodies and light within time that is observed in expansion or retraction and not time itself.

On the other hand, you claim time was somewhere out there outside the universe. All I request from you is the evidence you have for this other time that did not commence with the Big Bang.

I really have to ask you what you imagine time to be.

For your use of the word "other time" is just regrettable to any approximation of the concept of time.

I repeat to you that the very fact that a hot dense point is said to exist BEFORE the expansion, is already a statement made with an acknowledgement of the existence of a period before the expansion.

What is such a period, if not time? ? ? ?

You're getting things mixed up. I agree with the evidence at hand that this super hot and dense state started expanding.

Aha. And before it "started" expanding. . .?

I hope you see now.

What created this entity that caused it to create this universe? This goes on till infinity unless you use a special pleading to create this God of yours.

"What created the hot and dense point that caused it to expand into a universe? This goes on till infinity unless you use a special pleading to create this hot and dense point of yours." Your words, not mine.

Your only claim so far is that "something cannot come out of nothing". So my question is why do you assume 'nothing' must precede this state?

I did not presume that.

You, on the other hand, presume that a gross material state, just sits there existing from eternity. Where is your proof for that?

Are you attending  Hogwarths? How did that state arrive? You ask infinite regress questions and evade the same question of your own theory. You even give the same answer I give - a state of default - save your case cannot be tendered because material things do not self exist because they are not immutable. They change. Self-existent things are logically immutable and unchangeable. They also logically cannot be tangible.

Have you considered that I have not claimed that 'nothing' must have been the default state?

So what is the principle behind your default state? Why exactly is it a default state? And how so?

Please understand what you are doing. You are taking a word with an implied meaning to lots of people and you wish to co-opt this word to mean something that may not be recognized by these people. I say it is up to you to make your particular meaning clear and to avoid confusion, you may use another word for this.

No: every religion understands and recognises the concept of God as being that which created all that exists. In my propositions I have not deviated from that basic understanding.

Do you go about scientifically taxing and probing the existence of leprechauns? How about Zeus and Quetzalcoatl? Explanations for such creatures are already available so unless I intend to go into anthropology and similar fields, I don't deeply concern myself about them being real to those claiming they saw them or that they did things for them.

Flawed; because the universe is real, it is tangible gross matter and as such cosmological question as to its source my be probed by the inquiring mind.

What you have claimed to be a purpose is quite meaningless to me.

Might I ask what is meaningful to you?

Why even bother existing, tell me. What's the point?

But you see I have not concluded anything. You automatically conclude that there must be someone causing something out there. I simply go where the evidence leads me.

There is no evidence for your claim that a material something is possibly the default state of things.

There is no eveidence for your claim that time commenced at the moment of the big bang.

There is no evidence for your claim that space was created by the big bang, exactly because you CANNOT tell me INTO WHAT the universe is expanding?

The concept of time that I apply is that used in the scientific field and this began with he Big Bang. So you again are attempting to use time in an unfamiliar way.

Busted. Kindergarten logic really.

You yourself have described the pre-bang state as being a hot dense point?

Once you can decribe a previous time and state, it is incongruous to state that time only began after that already acknowledged previous time and state.

No event can precede itself!

toba:
@DSight I'm disappointed with your post. how could u have descended to such a low level? I'm here clamouring that u deserve to be this sections poster of the year, not minding your numerous attacks on Christians&Christianity.
U started a thread apologising to Christians on Nl for your numerous,unpleasant & unnecessary attacks on the pretence that u would turn a new leaf. What u just posted about this chap is unfair&unnecessary.

Haba. Just for sourcing a quote from Oga Inesqor which contradicts his arguments here?

And when did you clamour that I should be the Religion Section Poster of the year? You certainly have not done that under the username "toba". . . could it be you you made that clamour under your other username here -

[quote author=jesus. link=topic=556936.msg7281548#msg7281548 date=1291646975]though not decided yet, but Deepsight may have my vote for the poster of the year[/quote]Confess. You sef don grab double personality.

OK, no vex.

Speaking seriously though, granted that you say you have changed, have your views on what religion is to be defined as changed?

P.S: My last post was rather off the handle: i must admit I was irked that your only response to a seeming contradiction was the plea that you have changed. Like I said, if you have changed your views on a particular matter, it is enough to simply state so - for we are all aware that the core of your religious views have not changed. Or have they?

Since the core of your religious views have not changed (i.e: you still espouse the same christian views), it is a bit much to expect people to absorb contradictions by saying to themselves - "he has changed."

In my case, you will note that the core of my views obviously changed, as whereas I was once christian, I am no longer such.

Inesqor, if u have changed your views you should simply say so. The quote i sourced gives a patent lie to your assertions on this thread.

You must realize that i am not responsible for what your own post reveals as a disturbing case of schizophrenia.

I really can not imagine what it takes to begin to search for quotes from others to validate your perception of yourself.

The best poster I have ever read on this forum - a gentleman with the psuedonym "Prizm." Such a pity the gentleman seems to have no time for NL discussions any longer. Take a few moments and review his posts (they are very few).

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?action=profile;u=113205;sa=showPosts

I dare say this gentleman is a shining example of quality thoughts and quality contributions.

Care to share more quality posts from the past, since there is so little quality these days on the religion board?

Lets have blasts from the past.

vescucci:
Lol, I've missed DS.

Really!

Look, I believe in God. I don't know why I do but I just do. However I don't think there's any logical reason to say He exists. It's just what we wanna believe. Sure it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of anything. I agree. What I said was that it is even more inconceivable that something that has always been created all. It doesn't mean it's not true, it's just more unlikely.

Self contradictory.

Discern the contradictions - you state -

"However I don't think there's any logical reason to say He exists." - (Statement 1)

Which is scandalously contradictory to your next statement -

"Sure it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of anything. I agree." - (Statement 2)

This statement absolutely and irretrievably infers that Statement 1 is false.

You would need to ponder on this - and this alone and singularly puts a lie to the rest of your post.

It infers directly that there is every logical basis and ratiionale for the belief in a pre-existent entity - God.

In my opinion, such things as time and space are not binding factors. They're caused. There can be no time without motion of bodies.

Time is an intangible constant.

No space without bodies.

False. Into what is the universe expanding ? ? ? ?

Time, space and numbers are just ideas.

This is a shocking statement.

In that case the universe is imaginary, given that it exists in time and space, which you claim are "just ideas."

I won't even start with numbers, for that will obviously be too intense.

In any case, the above is not my point. I meant 'somethings' as physical things with mass. If you can give me other examples of 'elements' that have always existed, I'm sure I'll find them interesting. What'd be more interesting though is to tell me how say infinite time can birth a puny finite atom or even the suave thing called energy.

Infinite time and infinite space constitute an eternal constant which is the well spring of infinite cosmic energy.

This is what radiates outwards and in latter stages forms matter.

If you know me, you'd find that I consider religious hogwash a bit like Harry Potter books.

What is Harry-Potterish is imagining that it is logical to suppose that the universe popped up purposelessly.

Anyways, you simply find it satisfactory to think that God never came into being. Ok.

Yes, because it is an intangible reality, capisce?

How is that more probable than we coming into existence by accident?

This question contains a fallacy. It assumes material things to be already existent, from which state some sort of accident could then contrive us.

How did material things come to exist in the first place?

This question does not apply to intangible things for the very reason of their intangibility.

At all events, anybody who can look at DNA or the contruct of the human eye and faculties alone and imagine chance and accident to be a plausible explanation is not doing much better than the child you believes in santa claus.

Perhaps the potpourri needed for our creation had always been available. And if you believe that the universe has always been, then the chance of us being created by chance is one. The reason I reject chance creation is cuz I believe in the Big Bang. Note that I never proposed the universe came into existence out of nothing. Even the Big Bang doesn't propose this.

Matter is not eternal in the past. It comes from pre-existing energy. You need to reflect on what that energy is.

To conclude, what I've been trying to say is that logic and critical reasoning when faced with the question of God's existence will say it's more likely that he doesn't exist.

How is this different from believing in black magic?

thehomer:
Please explain.

You are making no attempt to either explain or understand the phenomenon of existence. It is lazy to simply state that the religionist is wrong and then sit back and sulk. You need to task yourself to propound what the right answer might in fact be.

It tires me to deal with persons who are so good at asking questions but are never to be seen attempting to provide any answers of their own whatsoever.

Here is the task and the challenge that I leave for you:

Why something instead of nothing?

Provide your answer.

Definite beginning in what sense? I hope you understand that all we do know is that it started expanding about 14.7 billion years ago. So are you claiming that it began expanding because of this undefined 'God' of yours?

Can you advance an intelligible reason for the commencement of the expansion.

I state to you that you can not.

Would you consider scientific laws as causes? Please don't push your misconceptions on me. You are the one assuming some particular entity as being responsible for the expansion of the universe.

Scientific laws do not exist in a vacuum.

You still have to address the founding question before you can discuss anything -

Why something instead of nothing?

My point is that we simply do not know if it does apply to the universe because the only evidence we have for this can only be explained within a framework of time which also commenced with the expansion of the universe. And, it becomes absurd to speak of time outside of the universe.

Time is an intangible non congintent constant.

The experience of time, is what differs.

Time itself is simply a constant, nothing more.

For this reason it is ludicruous to limit time to realm of matter.

It is an intangible.

What you and the misguided scientific community need to more correctly state is that you measure the time of the existence of this universe from the point of the expansion. That is altogether different from stating that time commenced with the big bang. That is hog wash. Time is an intangible constant and cannot be seen to "begin" or "end" anywhere, anyhow.

This concept requires time. And time as we know it commenced with our universe.

Explained above. Time did not commence with the expansion of the universe, contrary to what may be bandied about by misfooted science.

Time is an intangible constant and does not "begin." It cannot begin. It is a constant.

Besides you still have not shown just why the law of cause and effect should not be seen to apply to the physical universe?

Because it is a law observed in physics and the universe is physical.

So sorry, THAT is special pleading on your part.

Do you wish to posit some sort of energy floating out there outside of this universe? Is this even coherent?

What are you talking about? Is it not true as I stated that motion requires energy? Is that not an elementary fact? ? ?

Can you explain to me from whence the energy in the pre-bang singularity originated from.

Oh, I forgot, the atheist santa-claus put it there.

Wow. I wonder how you relate non-belief in God with belief in magic. How do you draw this comparison?

Because non-belief in God equates a belief that things sprang out of nothing purposelessly. That is magic.

If you wish to propose a certain cosmic cause please go ahead with your demonstration. And a cosmic purpose please go ahead. I'm curious, what is the purpose of the universe?

The universe is an outward radiation of the intangible reality that is embedded in the singularity of God.

Lazy? I'm simply pointing out that you do have your work cut out for you since you seem to wish to make God into something that God believers may not recognize.

I repeat that you are being lazy for limiting yourself to what your so-called "God-believers" recognize.

You have legs, use them to walk for yourself.

Of course for the purpose of discussion, this may be fine. To me, it would simply be a waste of time.

There you have it: an admission that you are not inclined to probe. An admission that you regard inquirity and intellectual curiousity as a waste of time. That is most un-scientific indeed, for a man who screams "science!" before every meal.

You fail to understand that I see no particular reason to call on an entity to explain the universe.

What shall you call upon to explain it then. . . the tooth fairy perhaps?

You imagination that the universe pops out purposelessly is a belief in magic - for which you ridicule the religionist.

You need a better analogy than this because footsteps already imply person.

No, they could imply an animal or robot. They could even be a recorded sound.

So you see why you have demonstrated laziness again? - - - The truly inquiring mind keeps all options open and sets out to discern the correct one.

Sorry I did not formally study philosophy but from what I've seen, we don't even have to get to this extent because assuming that this God of yours is an uncaused entity that causes the universe is simply a form of special pleading. Otherwise, do you consider the hot and dense state from which the universe began to expand as God?

And I still do not see why this God of yours is necessary.

This propably explains your misapprehension of the concept of time as something that could possibly have a beginning.

Krayola:
@Vescucci. I gbadun that your last post. E be like say sugar dey inside. Pardon my frensh

In fact, ehn, while reading his post I had to stop to check if it was not a post from you - because the views expressed were so strikingly similar to the things you have said to me repeatedly!

Anyhow, as you probably already know, I do not agree with it in the least and will revert later.

Duty calls now.

[size=4pt]Dont worry, not guiness stout this time, a woman i need to honour.[/size]

thehomer:
No I'm not.

You must be. I must also respectfully add that your response was lamentably lazy. No offence intended bro.

Why would any one expect this concept of cause and effect to apply to the universe as a whole at the time of its expansion?

Because the universe is a finite thing which had a definite beginning. It is not eternal in the past.

Everything that is finite and which has a definite beginning also logically has a cause.

Otherwise it would not have a definite beginning: definite beginnings demand a trigger. That stands to reason: and a position to the contrary is nothing short of believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Perhaps I should place to YOU the very same question: why would any one expect the concept of cause and effect NOT to apply to the universe? ? ?

About what?

The law tells us that no finite effects can be observed in existence where such effects commenced at a given point if there is no cause. This is cast in iron, and I positively challenge you to dispute it: and in so doing cite examples to validate that which you have imagined.

About what?

The laws of motion give us to know that nothing is observed to begin or commence movement without a trigger in the form of energy.

It was well considered. You're free to demonstrate the problems with the statement.

Demonstrated. And easily so. I state to you that your assertion that the end result of critical thinking is atheism is about as ludicruous as stating that the end result of critical thinking is a belief in magic.

For it denotes a causelessness and purposelessness to the wonder of the universe about us: and to the wonder of our innate faculties: which proposition is beyond absurd.

Why should I? If you wish to redefine God in some way, you're free to do so but do not expect others who have a conception of what the word 'God' means which is actually shared by a very large number of people to simply make way for you and your new definition. You're also perfectly free to use another word for this 'God' of yours.

Now this is the specific portion of your post which struck me as lazy.

It is simply not enough for the truly enquiring mind to address the religious ontology of God and remain stuck with it: seeing absurdities therein and not tasking yourself to think beyond that and into the philosophical and logical construct that is denoted by the reference to God.

Indeed all people have a notion of what that construct is: and it simply is the notion of that entity which is responsible for all else that exists. If you and I are able to discern internal inconsistencies in the religiously conceived ontology of that entity, it behoves us to task our minds to probe over and beyond the flawed religious ontology and reflect on that which may be the causative factor of this existence - which factor is what all peoples retain as the core understanding of what God is.

You are like a man who heard footsteps in his yard late at night: and because the neighbours concluded that the footsteps belonged to a ghost, finding that improbable - you conclude that the footsteps belonged to no one: you lazily do not task yourself to ponder the question - given that the neighbours are wrong - who in fact did the footsteps belong to? ? ?

Why is this 'God' of yours necessary and non-contingent? Do you wish to go with a fallacy of special pleading to explain his necessity and non-contingence?

This has nothing to do with special pleading.

This proves to me that you have yet to get off the mark. I have spent too much energy discussing this in the past - I will only urge you to go and school yourself on the elementary philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things. Use google. Or wikipedia. That's at least a start.

Quote from thehomer -

I'd say it's likely but realistically, I simply cannot say because all we have is a sample size of one.

What I simply mean is this: do you consider it likely that intelligent life exists only on the earth, given the approximate size of the universe.

To answer this we needn't make any comparisons with other universes - given that we know nothing of such.

The OP has made several claims from the origin of humans to that of human legends. I don't see what planetary engineering has to do with this post but if it was in that wall of text, I didn't read it. But if it is about Annunaki referred to in another post, (the link by tpia@) then those claims simply go against physics.

The real question in case you missed it is this: Since planetary engineering and also bio-engineering of living clones is already within the realm of human science and having regard to whatever you may consider is the degree of probability of the existence of intelligent life other than on the earth, would you consider it possible that other civilizations may also have engineered planets and creatures?

Do you consider it absolutely unthinkable, inconceivable and impossible - that the earth could be one such engineered piece?

Martian:
Human spiritual experience!!

Define a spirit/soul or whatever entity you guys think actually reside in a human being. And exactly where is this spirit/soul thing located?

I doubt that you are interested in the details, and as such, you may just ignore what I wrote. I think it would work better that way.

A cyclical existence. I like that. Let's work with that.

Do you suppose a cyclical existence will -

1. Deny the spirit new frontiers

2. Dovetail into a sureality of repeated experiences

Whereas a linear existence will eternally push new boundaries.

This is with regard to the human spiritual experience. . .which I do not know if you also apply a cyclical construct to.

With regard to existent things as a whole. . .what would you regard as the purpose of existential cycles?

Pastor, you seem to have an affinity with circles. I am sure I have read you state a zillion times that time, nay, existence may be cyclical and not linear.

^^^ That really struck me - This person argues that christrianity is not a religion, but that atheism is a religion? ? ?

Good grief.

^^^ I state to you that your perception is altogether misfooted, and I state this as follows -

vescucci:
Ah, Deep Sight. I'm afraid it's your opinion that is really curious o. You can never say it's more rational to believe in God on the basis of His being uncaused because that begs the question, what caused Him?

I did not state the basis of belief to be the fact of God being uncaused. I stated - that there must be an element which pre-exists the universe and I proceeded to derive that element as a philosophical and logical construct.

This is strictly consistent with logic because it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of nothingness without a cause, without a reason, without a principle or rationale.

Now you are the one who has applied the word "being". . .I very deliberately used the word "element" for the specific purpose of this discussion.

It's mathematically improbable that the universe just came into being outta nothingness but it's even more mathematically improbable that there's something that has always been which created all things.

By what means did you arrive at your assessment of these probabilities?

I have news for you sir: there ARE elements and factors that are definitely eternal and cannot logically be said to have had a beginning.

1. Infinite time

2. Infinite Space

3. Numbers

By what process of reasoning could you presume that these had a beginning? Is it not also beyond cavil that everything needs must have arisen within these self-existent factors?

Do you hope to contradict or deny this?

So I'd say critical thinking will lead to a conclusion that a supreme being is extremely unlikely, not impossible though.

Again for the purpose of this discussion I have defined God as a pre-existing element responsible for all else that exists. I have also been very clear that the concept of God delivered by Religion is NOT that which I speak about. I speak about a philosophical and logical construct which infers the pre-existence of an uncaused element or factor, and I call that factor God.

There is NO critical thinking which leads to any conclusion that may logically deny the precept of a pre-existent element in these terms - the best that you can do is to point out internal inconsistencies in the religious ontology of God, which is NOT that which I advance to you.

Belief in God is largely just that, a belief. It can't really be reasoned out cuz there'll always be a better argument.

I would like to hear the "better aruments" that you think may be advanced?

Perhaps one such may be that. . . .BING! The universe pops out, purposely and meaninglessly, out of nothing. . .?

Would that make sense to you?

That, I submit, is worse than believing in fairy-tale magic.

WHERE IS INESQOR? ? ? ?

I just came across YOUR OWN definition of religion in an old thread in your Mavenbox days -

@DeepSight:
It takes a lot of understanding to get what noetic is saying. "Christianity is not a religion". Why?
My personal definition of religion (open to criticism):

Quote
Religion is a strong belief in a supernatural power (i.e. Deity) or powers (i.e. Deities) who is (are) the personification(s) of (a) force(s) that control human destiny, some part of the world or some aspect of life.In the light of my definition above, humans who believe in a religion or the other carry out relevant activities to ensure that they are in the right standing with that deity (or those deities) to prevent damnation and secure serenity and success either in this life, or in another (if they believe in a life after this one), or both. It is an ever-reaching attempt by man to reach and experience the divine.

Given the foregoing, your contributions to this thread are paradoxical.

thehomer:
I said the non-belief in a God is generally the end result of critical thinking.

You are joking, right?

Can you tell me how "critical thinking" would support the incongruity of an uncaused universe?

What does the law of cause and effect tell us?

What do the various laws of motion tell us?

I am sorry, Homer, but this statement of yours is farcical and absolutely ill-considered or not considered at all.

I would adjure you to draw a distinction between the gods set out within the cosmogony of religion - and that element which perforce must pre-exist to render the universe extant - which element I state to you as GOD. For I say to you that while it may be apt to discard the cosmogony of God as conceived by religion, critical thinking certainly cannot discard the conception of God as a philosophical and logical construct as the uncaused, necessary and non-contingent element the existence of which is cardinal to render the universe extant.

If Jesus could turn water into wine, surely he has turned your joblessness into wine.

DINE!

@ Justcool -

M_Nwankwo spoke about the Trinity in another thread, and I quote him -

Any separation between God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit will lead to errors in conception. My perception is that it is a small essence of God the father that is Jesus Christ and another small essence of God the Father that is the Holy Spirit. In other words it is God the Father that works in three fold as the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Being "parts" of the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are eternal, uncreated and have no beginning. Thus it is correct to call them God the son and God the Holy Spirit respectively.

Observe the bolded words in red.

Does the Grail Message not teach that Abd Ru Shin is the Holy Spirit?

justcool:
@Deepsight

Thanks you so much for your questions; you raised so important question. I will offer my perceptions on the issues that you raised.


The thirst for the knowledge of God is an integral part of the Spirit. Conscience –I will rather use the word “intuitive perception” rather than conscience. Intuitive perception could be likened to the voice of the spirit; and one who follows the promptings of his spirit is already on the right path, as you quite rightly said.

But so many volitions and thoughts strike humans on earth, and some people find it difficult to discern that which is the voice of their spirit (intuition). Consequently many people live in volitions that are totally alien from their intuition, yet believing that they are following their intuition.

Before we deal with intuition and love lets ask ourselves what the spirit is. Spirit is the will of God. All that bear spirit within are part bearers of the will of God. Hence the intuition, which comes from the spirit, is always in accord with the will of God.

In this ‘bearing the will of God’ lies the fact that the spirit cannot exist as spirit without God or the will of God. The spirit needs God, and not only that, the spirit carries the ability to recognize the will of God in any situation, and to know of God. In creation wherever an ability is given, from there it is also expected the maximum use of the ability.

This ability to know of God, an ability which lies in all that is spiritual, is also a demand from all that bears spirit within, to know of God. The impetus to this is given to the spirit in the thirst for God which is an integral part of the Spirit. Thus all that comes from the spirit is filled with the thirst for God. Every intuitive perception is permeated with love and the knowledge of God.

When an individual tells you that he lives in his intuition yet he feels no need to approach God or recognize God. Such individual does not live in his intuition; neither does he know what love is. For in the thirst for God lies the love of the spirit for God. And only the man who loves God can love his neighbor. I know this is hard to accept given the caricature that we humans have made of love. But what we humans generally call love is not the Love which Christ spoke about, it is not the love that is embodied in Christ.

So simply put, real love cannot exist without God; one who does not know of God cannot radiate real love. Love comes only from the spirit; it is an integral part of the spirit; it is always evidenced in the intuitive perception just as the thirst for God is always evidenced in the intuitive perception. Love is neither a feeling nor an emotion; it is simply an intuitive perception.

A man in susbsequent creation who have not recognized Jesus is not yet fully utilizing his intuitive perception to maximum. If a man truly listens to his intuition, he will be filled with the thirst for God. This intuitive perception is the purest form of prayer, which in its reciprocal effect will link such a man with the rays of God's love. His spirit will trace this ray to its very source--Jesus.

Experiences will bring such man in contact with Jesus, but not personally. Such a man may in his intuition discern the vibration love in creation, as the knowledge of God and Jesus vibrates throughout the entire creation. This recognition doesn't necessarily have to be on earth; one can arrive at this recognition in the beyond.

Thus a man who has not recognized Jesus will not be able to ascend to the kingdom of God. His nonrecognition is a stamp of the immaturity of his spirit. A mature spirit utilizes its intuition to the fullest; and one who does this will easily pick up the vibrations of Love(Jesus) and Justice(Imanuel). These vibrations reverberate in the entire creation, for creation itself issued out of these vibrations.

But keep in mind that this recognition, this picking up the vibration of Love that descends from above, does not necessarily have to been done consciously. A man’s spirit may already have made contact with this vibration; this prompts such a man to radiate love to his fellow creatures. Every now and then this vibration stirs unexplainable longings in him, he longs for what he does not yet know; his spirit already swings in the rhythm of love, yet this man being a Moslem or a Buddhist may never suspect that his spirit has already made contact with the spirit of Christ. The weight of his brain may never allow him to consciously acknowledge Jesus. Only on passing on, when his physical body falls away as in physical death, will he realize that he already lives in the love of Christ and perhaps was a better disciple of Jesus than a Christian. Then, freed from the weight of his physical body, he will easily trace this radiation all the way its origin--Jesus.

This explains why the ancients, as they matured were able to come to the knowledge of the lords of the elemtals, spiritual beings and places, and even the Grail. The ancient Romans, from the radiation that descended from above, where able to pick up and discern the lords of the elemental like Jupiter, Venus and etc. The ancient Jews who were more advanced spiritually were able to decipher spiritual happenings and beings from this radiation, beings like angels, the son of man, the fall of Lucifer and etc. Certain stories which we regard today as legends are actually bassed on happenings in creation, although some of them are not passed down correctly and some have a lot of fantasies attached to them. Legends like that of Parsifal the 'Pure Gate', the fall of Amfortas and etc. These are bassed on actual events that took place; like a stone dropped in an occean causes ripples across the body of water, these events send ripples of vibration across the entire creation and sensitive spirits pick them up.

All that happens and exsist above radiate downwards towards subsequent creation; what each spirit is able to pick up from the radiations is a testerment to the spirit's level of maturity.

So the human spirit must arive at the recognition of God before it is permited to enter the Kingdom of God.

I can only say that your surmise is contradictory. Its conclusion actually agrees with that which i set out - namely that love is what is key - and that recognitions of this or that entity are of no moment whatsoever - especially when considered as you mentioned that "swinging in the vibration of love" is what is key.

For this reason, I am entirely satisfied that even if in fact Jesus and Abd Ru Shin and Olumba Obu are all divine beings, one's ignorance of such will take absolutely nothing away from one's spirituality - so long as one is swinging in the vibration of love.

I might as well be a red indian living in north america 700 years ago.

Now what is most key is this: and here I believe is another contradiction within your world-view -

1. The persona, identity and being of Jesus etc - are said to rest within the divine.

2. It is asserted that man can never comprehend the divine, as it rests above his origin.

Why then do you expect man to have or develop any exact recognition of beings resting within that divine plane?

This simply does not add up: nor can I accept that divine justice would require any such "recognition" from mankind.

For these reasons I find your statement that "a man who has not recognized Jesus will not be able to ascend to the kingdom of God" - to be quite off-centre, paradoxical and potentially misleading.

Yes but what is Love? Can one love genuinely without his/her intuition? Can one utilize his intuition without yearning for God?

Can anybody ever have God?

No.

So what you describe as a "yearning for God" is rather expressed as a yearning for love which is expressed by and amongst human spirits.

This is what it means to "have" God - within the human context and having regard to human experiential limitations.

I do appreciate that it is a living reality that pervades creation: but we access it in our experiencing which occurs as interaction with other beings and with creation.

God itself can not be grasped.

The desire to recognize God and all His manifestations in creation is not born out of fantasy, but it is an integral part of the spirit. The spirit is hardwired to thirst for God; just as a duck thirst for water or a fish longs for a body of water. This is natural quality of the spirit; just as a helium filled balloon naturally floats upwards so does the spirit naturally long for and float towards the kingdom of God. Just as it is hardwired into plants to grow towards the light, or spread their leaves in the sun; so is the desire for God hardwired into the spirit.

It is unfortunate to reduce the yearning and recognition of God to a cultish worship of a fellow mortal human being.

Much of your explanations dovetail with what i understand to be the truth - however it is regrettable that your conclusion attempts to demand an exaltation of a mere mortal as a divine being, and worse - follow up by insisting that persons who reject this are not "using their intuitive perception to their maximum. . ."

That leaves me dumbfounded.

Like I explained already, the spirit naturaly gravitates towards God. Consequently whenever a part of God enters creation spirits in creation gravitate towards Him. Thus the desire to know Jesus and to approach him in spirit is not born out of fantasy, rather it is a natural effect of reality. The same is applicable with the desire to know the son of man, who also carry Divinity within Him.

That is why we are also trying to gravitate towards Olumba Olumba Obu, and a zillion other claimants of divinity.

I believe I have asserted to you before that it is incongruous to speak about a "part" of God, for God is infinite, and there cannot be a "part" of an infinity. There can only be parts of finite things, and not of the infinite intangible God.

It is the height of human arrogance and presumption, this business of equating mortals with God, and it is regrettable that the otherwise brilliant work called the Grail Message, winds up with a declaration of the divinity of the writer. That is regrettably self-serving.

Wherever the intuition is evidenced there the desire for God is caressed. For the thirst for God is an intricate part of the spirit. The hallmark of all religions should be to link man to his creator. The desire to know of God, to live in the laws of God, and to be as near to God as man's nature permits is the right impetus for all religious movement.

Yes, close to God, not close to mere mortals claiming to be God or "parts" of God.

Viewed aright, everything in existence may be said to be integral to God.

Any cult formed without this desire as the basic foundation has no spiritual bases no matter much charity they do.

Charity is the best that one can aspire to.

The individual who practices genuine love( Love that comes from the spirit) is already on his way to coming in-contact with the spirit of Christ. Such an individual will soon be filled with the desire to approach God. As long as he continues on this path, he will one day come to the recognition of Jesus and Imanuel. But this doesn't necessarily have to be on the earth and it doesn't matter what religion the individual belonged to while on earth.

Well said. My only reservation being your presumptions regarding the identities of Jesus and Imanuel.

Love is the path, recognition of God is the gate to the Kindgom of God or the ultimate goal of the spirit. The human being who thinks he can ascend to Paradise whithout the regonition of God, Jesus and Imanuel is making a big mistake.

I hope you see that the portion in blue contradicts the portion in red.

And in saying this i note that we are agreed that swinging in the vibration of love is what is key.

You may call that vibration Jesus, another may call it Shango, and yet another may call it Olumba Olumba Obu.

Personally, I will credit that person who ascribes it to GOD, devoid of any presumptuous promotion or deification of human beings.

Here you are just making accusations. I never equated the writer of the Grail Message to Almighty God. I never said that Abd-ru-shin is equal to God.

Let us not run around in circles.

1. You state and believe that Abd Ru Shin is the Holy Spirit.

2. You state and affirm a belief in the Trinity comprising Father, Son and Holy Spirit - this is stated in the Grail Message.

Any person can add up 1 & 2 above and see the glaring result: you can therefore not deny the obvious inference.

What is "part" of an infinity, anyway?

Do you not realize that such a "part" must perforce itself bear the quality of infinity - just as surely as fractions of numbers themselves contain an infinity of fractions along the infinite number line. Thus stating that any person is a 'part' of God in the context you use does indeed amount to equating that person with God.

Abd-ru-shin warned against all sorts of personality cults in His message where He gave all the glory to God. The Grail Message made it clear that only God should be worshiped. Abd-ru-shin never asked anybody to worship Him.

He described his own countenance as Parsifal in the Grail Castle, describing himself as "glorious, imperious, perfect" and commanding men to "bow down" before such imperious glory.

If that is not a demand for worship I wonder what else is. Do you require me to source the quote within the Grail Message? I will.

Because I perceived that it aimed at starting religious battles or comparing sects against sects. I try as much as I can to stay away from such. I don’t condemn people for their beliefs; as long as the individual is honestly convinced of what he is preaching, that is right for him.

I actually found this, coming from you, to be tragically sad. I deeply regret that you could have such a view of my motives.

Nonetheless, no matter: I state my concern again - and put very simply it is a frank worry that once any body of writing is accepted as infallible and ABSOLUTELY correct in truth, then the person accepting that can NEVER think outside that manual, and can NEVER challenge anything in that manual.

For me, that is a profound limitation in the quest for truth.

justcool:
It is very important that each individual recognize the son of man.

If one has love embedded in his heart and live according to the disctates of his conscience, what need is there to recognise the identity of ANY spiritual or divine being? ? ? ? ?

Is everything not completed in the simplicity of love? ? ? ? ?

Is it not rather the creation of unnecessary cults of legend about human beings that necessitates any special recognition of any particular being? ? ? ?

For I am firmly persuaded that even one who recognises NO spiritual or divine being (such as a pure buddhist) may remain on the right path so long as he believes in and practices genuine love.

The whole idea of "recognising" any particular being as "special" in the specific terms that you referred to, is nothing short of vain-glorious idolatry, in my humble opinion.

justcool:
They, the brotherhood of the cross and star, would seize any prophecy they can lay hold on, even the ones they don’t understand and try to use it to validate the blasphemy that O.O is the son of man.

It may equally be asserted that you blaspheme when you assert the human authour of the Grail Message to be both the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit - especially considering that in endorsing the doctrine of the Trinity, despite your protestations and denials to the contrary, you unwittingly equate the human writer of the Grail Message to Almighty God. If THAT is not blasphemy, I do not know what else is.

Usually I don’t judge people or leaders of religions but it is my perception that O.O is a human spirit, and consequently cannot lay claim to Divinity.

Usually I don’t judge people or leaders of religions but it is my perception that Abd Ru Shin is a human spirit, and consequently cannot lay claim to Divinity.

Even if it did happen, how do you know that it was not a prophesy concerning another person that the brotherhood high jacked, just as they High jacked the prophesy of the son of man?

How do we know that the writer of the Grail Mesage has not hi-jacked the self same prophecy for himself in the same fashion as many others have done before and after him - presenting vastly similar teachings as he did as set out in the OP.

It will not do for you to simply state that "you have come to such and such recognition about his identity" - EXACTLY because the followers of O.O. may just as well also state that they have also come to such and such recognition regarding his identity.

PLEASE DO PARDON ME MY INQUIRIES: It simply remains bizzarre for me to observe you tacitly condemn others for the EXACT SAME blasphemy that you have appropriated to the founder of your own religfious sect - namely - the presumption of divinity.

I did also note that you have avoided this query -

Deep Sight:
I have two questions for you, and the one flows from the other.

1. Do you believe that the belief in biblical inerrancy by many christians could limit their understanding of certain truths?

2. If so, do you not see a corresponding danger in your belief in the inerrancy of the Grail Message and its authour?

Thanks.

@ the homer -

Given that you seem fairly well grounded on the sheer size of the cosmos, do you suppose that it is realistic to believe that the earth is the only planet supporting intelligent life in all the universe?

Are you aware of the emerging field of science termed 'planetary engineering'? Do you think this may have any bearing on the OP?

Due to reduced pressure of the power of God in subsequent creation, the will of the human spirit rules;

Is it really realistic to speak about "reduced pressure of the power of God" - - - - for if you reflect closely, does this not amount to view God as finite.

For any element to have gradations, more so reducing gradations of its power, that power must have a finite degree which begins to reduce to lesser degrees.

No infinite element or infinite power can be conceived in these terms. No "reduction" is conceivable in infinity.

. . . thus subsequent creation is subject to the will of man.

And not subject to the laws of God? ? ?

Does this abrogate the "perfect" laws of God as applicable to subsequent creation?

Is it not STILL those laws that rule even subsequent creation?

If so, why are those laws unable to deliver a "perfect" subsequent creation. . .or are those laws imperfect?

This is your perception. My perception differs from your here. I will repeat the same question I asked you earlier: Is there a distinction between a house and its form?

Referring the the physical form of a generating house(a house in the process of being built) does not make the house different from the form.

This is not apt in the least because a house is itself already a physical structure.

A thought, on the other hand is not a physical thing: and the very words of the authour of the grail message, to which you ascribe authourity, lend credence to that when it speaks of the "ethereal form of a generating thought" - showing clearly that the ethereal forms are NOT themselves the generating thoughts.

justcool:
@agi-tuedor

It is my perception that Abd-ru-shin was not a disciple of Baha'Ullah. Abd-ru-shin drew His message directly from God.

I have two questions for you, and the one flows from the other.

1. Do you believe that the belief in biblical inerrancy by many christians could limit their understanding of certain truths?

2. If so, do you not see a corresponding danger in your belief in the inerrancy of the Grail Message and its authour?

Thanks.

Jenwitemi:
Here is a radio talkshow for the interested on this very fascinating topic,

Adam's Calendar & Slave Species of God, http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/05may/RIR-100506-mtellinger.mp3

REVEAL THYSELF, JAGUNLABI!

nuclearboy:
I think the issue here remains that of right.

Some here are respected individuals and to them comes this question - if the God we are discussing here owns all things, would you then agree He has right to do what He wishes concerning/about them whenever He decides? If your answer is yes, why the argument? If No, why do you have right to make decisions on a daily basis and yet do not believe yourselves demented?

Either way above, you have a problem. The only way your argument can hold water is convincing us He is NOT God and thus has no right. I await your arguments that will PROVE this assertion.

PS: Emotions do not prove anything. Show us facts

If you were informed by a foreign civilization that the entity they believed to be GOD instructed them to invade your native Yoruba homeland and murder every man, woman and child there, would you not stop to doubt if indeed that entity was infact and indeed the GOD that is the creator of all existence?

Indeed, I can answer that very question for you: when the Islamist terrorist cites supposed injunctions from "God" to commit terrorist acts in the name of Jihad - you, Nuclearboy - you have NO doubt that this injunction is NOT from God.

Why then do you suppose that the genocidal injunctions in the Old Testament are actually from "God?"

What this shows is that your argument about "right" collapses in the face of that which YOU yourself understand to be morally objectionable, and that which YOU yourself, when considering the perceptions of other people about God, would NOT accept as injunctions that came from God.

If a Suicide bomber tells you that his actions are directed by God, you would positively deny that. You would not believe or accept that "God" endorsed such, or you would conclude that it simply was not the "true" God. This is true, once you are honest with yourself.

Why then would such injunctions appear in YOUR own scripture, and the best you proffer is simply to state that "God has the right" to do such.

Could the suicide bomber not equally state that "God" who directed him, has the "right" to destroy?

Lets be honest and straight: You DO NOT accept that God does such things - why then do you defend them once they appear in your own scripture.

The summary of what you are saying is that the violence prescribed by "God" in other religions is reprehensible, but the violence precribed by "God" in your own scriptures is acceptable, being "as of right."

Besides recall that God changeth not.

Why then do you believe that he has turned a new leaf since christ came?

Does God turn new leaves in his character and injunctions?

Is a changeable God perfect?

What makes such a God different from a politician: adopting suitable policies to suit the mood and the time?

The grave truth is this: and from this I will not resile - You are detached from the violence and this is why you approach it with cold blood.

FOR: You condemn present day religious inspired violence, because you are alive to witness its horrific nature.

If you were alive to witness the genocide effected on Israel's neighbours at the behest of their God, I am certain that you would not so cavalierly state "it is his right."

You would be repulsed: and that is the simple truth.

Genesis 3:22 - 24 -

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

WHY? ? ?

Discuss.

[quote author=Deep Sight - A LONG TIME AGO]Most importantly, can you shed light on Jesus’ repeated references to “his God.” He clearly showed himself to be worshipping God, even praying to God on several occasions. Could God pray to God? Does this make sense to you David?

The most spectacular of all his prayers, for me, is the statement in Gethsemane – “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”

This statement shows something cardinal: if Jesus were God, as you lot like to claim, his will, and the will of the Father would be absolutely inseparable! This prayer shows clearly that the Father’s will could be different from Jesus’ will, when he says – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. For me this is the most damning verse against the idea that Jesus is himself God. Because it shows a clear dichotomy of WILL between the father and the so called “son.” But I expect that in your usual fashion you will disregard Jesus’ own words in favour of your dogma.

In defending this, don’t you even dare bring up the lame line that it was his “human fear” that was speaking. Even mere mortals have shown great courage at the point of execution, or in battle, and you want to convince me that ALMIGHTY GOD, in human form, was not capable of stout hearted courage (especially when he was divine, and knew the purpose of his mission on the cross, and how sacred it was). Mere men have laid down their lives for their countries, happily and without asking for the cup to be removed from them. Gallantly! Now GOD himself, in human form, is not capable of such courage, to save his creatures?

Face it David: your dogma is more precious to you than the words of Jesus himself, who you call saviour and “God”!

Finally it is most pertinent to note that Jesus showed what sort of relationship he had with God when he says – “I am ascending to your father and my father, my God and your God”. [John 20:17]

This makes it pretty clear that in the same way as God is father for us, he is Father for Jesus, and that in the same way as God is God for us, he is God for Jesus.

No wonder 1 Pet. 1:3 – “Praise be to the God and father of our lord Jesus Christ!”[/quote]

Ogaga4Luv:
[size=13pt]^{We all are Satan , asking me to proof Satan's existence is like asking me to proof if i truly exist . and you seeing i exist disbelieve . I'm Satan and i don't give room for any so- called '' Religion '' - out there to keep spoiling my good name to bad to advertise and promote your God you've created in the imaginary to twist the world, and to control the mind of men .}[/size]

Then you should call yourself an Ogaga-ist and not a Satanist.

I'm done.