₦airaland Forum

mazaje:
There is nothing I see around me that points to any God, I see people and what they have created(cultures, systems, societies etc), plants, animals, rivers, mountains, natural phenomena, etc etc etc. . . . . .I don't see anything that points to any God. . . .Unless if you are saying that your God is nature and some of the things that men created . . . .

It is very well and fine if you do not see anything about you that points to God. Although I am tempted to add that the intricacy of the mental faculty that permits you to have thoughts (i:e your brain) is a staggering pointer.

Nonetheless let us frame it this way:

Everything you see around you is a pointer to the nature of - -> - - > - - > [Whatever caused things to exist]

Just as: the fruits borne by a tree are a pointer to the nature of - -> - - > - - > - - > - - > - - > - - > [The Tree]

You are at liberty to define the words contained in the brackets to suit your worldview. I define it as God. You may define it as a prebiotic soup, or a singularity, or the big bang, or Alex Ferguson. You are entitled. 

One thing however remains certain: whatever the truth really is will not be changed by your views or my views. If Alex Ferguson is the creator of the Universe, no amount of disbelief will change that fact. Just as surely as if there is a God that created all that exists: no amount of disbelief will change that fact. Likewise if the universe emerged purposelessly from a singularity without intelligent design, no amount of belief in a God will change that fact.

It is not likely that he will be able to offer a coherent response to your well articulated questions, given the sort of response he gave to your earlier question.

I just explained that already. It seems you do not understand what I wrote. The fact that something is a mystery does not mean that you may not know or understand some aspects of it.

Another example: no one may ever attain a 100% understanding of any other person. Indeed each individual never reaches a stage where he understands everything about himself 100%. This does not mean that we may not know things about people. We may know their plans, their character, their inclinations, their strengths and their weaknesses without ever understanding the totality of who they are. This is very simple.

In the same way, God is the ultimate mystery: the totality of God remains unfathomable: nonetheless much about God can be known by reading the book of life. The book of life is everything you see around you.

Life itself is mysterious. That is a fact. Our very existence on a blue planet circling a red star in the vastness of space is a huge mystery. So it should be no problem that God is said to be mysterious.

Now all this mystery does nothing to stop you and I from knowing that gravity exists, or that water consists of Hydrigen and Oxygen.

This means that although the sum of all things is mysterious, there are still many things that can be known.

Capisce?

@ Myjoe - That's a good write up BUT -

1. Yes: the deceiver is culpable as well: we all agree on that

2. However the deceived CANNOT escape culpability and none of the reasons you gave above are sufficient to justify the willfull suicide commited against a person's simple perceptive capacities by his submission to dogma. In this I am particularly convinced because I have seen stark illiterates who are NOT deceived by these blessing-peddlers - people who are not educated and not refined but are able to excercise their rational and intuitive perceptions AND CLEARLY SEE FRAUD FOR WHAT IT IS. What excuse then, does a well educated, refined person have for not similarly excercising his perceptive faculties? It's nothing but spiritual and mental laziness: and there is no justification for this.

3. NO HUMAN BEING is spiritually blind save by personal choice.

That God exists is a belief. That God does not exist is also belief. Each side has reasons for its belief and neither has empirical proof of its belief. No position is more 'rational' or superior to the other.

I wager it is more rational to suppose that there is a cause of observed finite things than to assert that there is no cause.

The one is in tandem with everything observed in the physical universe whereas the other is quaint fantasy.

Jenwitemi:
Deep Sight, you are not very perceptive, are you? Whatever.

Please address the issues and stop messing about.

You use the word "creator" for God and "created" for other sentient beings - WHY? ? ? ? Since you claimed they created each other why don't you use the word "creator" for the humans and "created" for God? ? ?

There is a reason that you deploy the word "creator" in reference to God: and everything you have said contradicts that reason.

As for "eternal in the past" It simply means something that has always existed. Infinity has always existed. Have human beings always existed? Can you prove that? ? ? ?

You are violently confused: and the tragedy of your confusion is that you imagine anything exotic or contradictory to be symptomatic of perceptiveness.

Post Retracted.

KAG - Is there not a difference between  -

1. Adaptation within a species - whereat various sub-sets may emerge displaying variations within that same species - (e.g: the kangaroo rats you mentioned -

AND

2. Evolution into an altogether different species - e;g - Fish overtime becomes amphibian, which becomes reptile and which becomes bird.

Jenwitemi:
"God" is a manmade english word.

This does nothing to answer the question "What is God." This escapist response may be given in respect of everything. If I am asked what  a TABLE is, I could toe your path and state - "Table is a man made English word." That of course does not tell me what a table is, because the word "table" refers to something, just as surely as the word "God" refers to something.

What is a Car. Your answer - "it is a man made English word." Ol boy you go fail exam o. Because the word "car" refers to something - an automated vehicle moving on wheels. 

Jenwitemi:
"US", not "ME".
Who is God without the totality of sentients beings? A non-existent. God is created through the collective perceptions of all sentients that exist, who in turn were created by God the creator. Can you see the tight relationship?

Ridiculous. Hocus pocus. Bunkum. This only works if humans are eternal in the past - i:e have always existed. There is no way you can assert or prove that that is the case. Accordingly it is prepostrerous to state that God created us and that simultaenously we created God - for the simple reason that if God created us, then naturally this implies that we came into existence AFTER God - and as such could not have been there to create God before we even existed. Quit the absurdities, Jenwitem.

Its been a while since I came across a thread this dim witted.

It is absolutely inconceivable that an entity said to exist transcendentally above all time and space, an eternal cosmic mind of omniscient powers - could be bothered about what humans chose to believe regarding IT.

We praise God becaus of IT's awesomeness. Not because God is bothered to be praised.

Jenwitemi:
How can it be known that God Is, if there is no person within or outside of God to perceive the God that IS?

I think that it is apt, as Beneli has indicated, that you first define for us what you mean by the term “God.”

I state to you that God is the oneness of all infinity. This is something that cannot but exist. It is self-existent. Thus, God IS.

All creative acitivities come from a need, whatever that need might be or serve, and it is no exception here.

Prove this claim. For I positively deny it. If I produce a work of art – that does not necessarily arise from a “need” strictly so called. It is simply an expression of my mind or feelings. I do not strictly NEED to express it.

Why is all that exists a necessary manifestation at all? Why can it not be any other way, like no manifestations at all?

Why do you have thoughts? Why not no thoughts?

Why does God have to create at all?

Why do you have to think at all ? ? ?

Deep Sight, if you create a work of art in remoteness, that is known only to yourself, and you go to another town without your artwork, how would you be known to be a creator of any work of art by the people you meet, unless you tell them that you are an artist?

You mistake being known as something with being something

Your very own words betray this fact – you asked – “how would I be known as an artist. This is your error. The issue is not about being known as anything. The issue is being something.

Thus I repeat; I may paint pictures in the privacy of my room all my life. No person may see such pictures. This does not mean that I am not an artist. I clearly am.

And for confirmation sake, they will rightly demand to see the artwork. If you cannot produce it, they have the right not to believe that you are an artist which will put pay to your claim as a creator.

They have a right not to believe, of course. That doesn’t change anything. I am what I am irrespective of whether the public knows it. The Public is often wrong, anyway.

That only you know that you have created something of any worth is never enough. It has to be confirmed either by the creation itself(if it is sentient) or by others who are equally sentient or else the creation itself will be worthless.

Ridiculous. I actually have (and this is true) a set of very potent drawings which I contrived for the purpose of bringing to life a specific imagination I have always had since I was a child. The drawings are so strange and other-worldly that I have never dared to show them to any person. It would be st.upid for any person to assert that for this reason the drawings do not exist.

That your creation is of any worth without it confirming you as a creator is absolutely ridiculous.

Would you care to mention WHY?

Because mankind creates inanimate things everyday – such as a car for example. The inability of the car to recognise man as creator does nothing to change the fact that man is the creator. Further, if the car was actually a sentient intelligent creature, its failure to recognise man as its maker would be absolutely irrelevant to the fact that man IS its creator.

Why go through all the trouble in the first place if your artwork does not serve you any purpose?

How dare you presume that it serves no purpose? The purpose is known only to me: it gives me private pleasure. Capisce?

The bible god did act desperate for fame, and so did allah. The bible and the quran showed this quite clearly.

I am not interested in the conception of God contained in either of those desert Semitic traditions.

I still maintain my stand that if you exist alone all by yourself, and no other sentient being is there to perceive your existence, then you do not exist, no matter how many universes you create.

Let me ask you a question; did the solar system exist before mankind arrived to “observe” and “perceive” it?

There you go.

I hope you will not be so ridiculous as to claim that it did not exist. This example alone makes it abundantly clear that things exist independent of observation.

You seek to tie observation to existence: and state that anything that is not perceived does not exist. This appalling line of reasoning will lead you to conclude that the planet Neptune did not exist until mankind invented a telescope powerful enough to see it. Or that atoms did not exist until mankind invented the microscope. Or that bacteria did not exist until mankind arrived to perceive them This is plain absurd. Quit it.

The perception through the consciousness of sentient beings create other sentient beings, who in turn create them.

In other words, Dinosaurs did not exist. Bravo.

This utterly closes the OP's case against himself.

Not so fast, buddy. What i meant there was that in the case of the creation being an inanimate or non-sentient being, then there is no imagining involved. Amoebas don't imagine up a God, do they? But sentient beings like humans do, and that is why they are paramount to any creator to have them occupying any created universes. That is why we are in existence, to bring God's creations, and God itself to life through our perceptions. So, my case is still open.

Study the foregoing closely. You state that – in the case of the creation being an inanimate or non-sentient being, then there is no imagining involved.

This statement makes it already clear that a created thing which is inanimate does not, and cannot recognise its creator. Yet this does not change the fact that it has a creator. Recall the example of the car I gave above. It is thus clear that the fact that an inanimate thing does not or cannot know its maker, does nothing to change the fact that its maker made it.

Now here is the question I have for you: why should it be any different with an animate or sentient being. Let us start first with a creator of low or no awareness, such as an ant or a rat. Would you say that the fact that an ant or a rat cannot conceive of God renders God non-existent?

You cannot state such a thing. Now -

1. Inanimate things and

2. Animate things of low consciousness

BOTH cannot conceive of God, and yet this does nothing to change anything about God!

Now the question is this – why should it be different with a creature of high consciousness and awareness? Why exactly should such a creature need to recognise God – its maker – before the maker can –

1. Be the maker and

2. EXIST.

Both the foregoing are ridiculous in the extreme. For what you unwittingly assert is that if every single conscious being were to become an atheist, then God would cease to exist. A horrid contradiction the like of which I have never come across before; because it is hinged on the thought that the creator is an imagination of the created. If that is the case, then there is no reason why you should refer to him as the creator in the first place! You cannot refer to him as creator and turn around to assert that he does not exist if not imagined by the created. That is contradictory.

In summary what you need to recognise is that the recognition or perception of any sentient being is not required for a thing to exist. The Andromeda Galaxy has existed for millions of years and THAT IS AN ADAMANTINE AND UNCHAEABLE FACT. Mankind did not “observe” or “perceive” it before it began to exist. The best you can say is that man did not know of its existence. Mankind’s inability to perceive it did nothing to change the fact that it existed.

Now note something carefully here. We did not perceive it because it was BEYOND us. Way beyond our perceptive capacities.

Does it not similarly strike you that there are things that currently remain way beyond our perceptive capacities? Is God not the most transcendental thing? If this is the case then it follows that God is also beyond us: and accordingly we may or may not perceive him: that will do nothing to change the fact of his existence

I need to draw your attention to a further implication of your absurd surmise: to wit – it implies that everything that man does not currently know of – DOES NOT EXIST.
This is inherently absurd because it means that nothing exists outside our knowledge, and thus the contradictory implication is that nothing new may ever be discovered.

Which is unthinkably ludicrous because new things are discovered everyday.

Tell me: did such things exist before they were discovered? Did Pluto exist before we discovered it? Of course it did. Aha.

You can summarily see how absurd, ludicrous and unsustainable your voodoo thinking is.

The topic is both perceptive on one level and yet tragically ill conceived on another level.

God IS.

The very nature of God by necessity expresses itself in terms of creation. In this sense I might say that God's very existence naturally and necessarily expands outward as creation. What this implies is that God cannot cease to "create" - creation is a mere manifestation of the eternal and infinite mind of the Godhead. Thus in answer to the OP: there is a sense in which it may be said that God does not, and cannot "be" without the natural expression of God's mind: to wit: creation.

But one must be most careful in this observation. This in no way implies that God "needs" anybody, race, species or entity for anything. It simply means that all that exists is a necessary manifestation of God's mind - which cannot but be the case. It could not be otherwise.

Jenwitemi makes alarmingly contradictory statements.

Jenwitemi:
To be a creator, one needs to have created something observed by another sentient being capable of acknowledgement. So, the created does not necessarily have to imagine it's creator in order for the creator to exist, even though this might be the case if the created is sentient enough, like humans for example. It can go both ways. The relationship between the created and the creator is always symbiotic, they both compliment each other. It is a dance of symbiosis.

The above, for example, is absolutely ridiculous.

If i create a work of art, the fact remains that I have created a work of art - whether or not ANY third party observes it. I cannot see how the affirmation or validation of a third party is required in any terms whatsoever. The fact remains that I have created that work of art. If I am a conscious and aware being, I would be aware that I have created a work of art. It is ridiculous in the extreme to argue that I am not an artist unless a third party sees my work. That is a pure logical fallacy. It seems Jenwitemi imagines a God who is despoerate for fame.

But the bizzareness does not stop there. If we consider strictly the question in the OP, it should be noted that the OP implies that the failure of any third party to observe my art not only renders me a non-artist - but in fact means that i do not exist. I submit that that is ridiculous in the extreme. It amounts to a suggestion that if the universe was not observed by mankind, then the creator ceases to exist. Or there was never a creator. This is unimaginably ridiculous.

Worse still, Jenwitemi concedes that he makes no point when he states -

So, the created does not necessarily have to imagine it's creator in order for the creator to exist

This utterly closes the OP's case against himself.

@ Nuclearboy, Mad_Max, KunleOshob -

I emphaticaly disagree. You make it appear as though the persons being fleeced are incapable of reading the bible.

You also make it appear as though those persons are incapable of quiet introspection.

These people have access to Bibles and can study the scripture if they choose to do so. Indeed I do not know what gives them the right to imagine themselves members of Christendom if they do not personally study the scriptures. The scriptures are clear that every word ministered to them should be subjected to personal study and introspection. If these people cannot read the scripture and free themselves from the lies being sold to them, then i verily submit that that is EXACTLY what they deserve. It is ridiculous to claim that people cannot reason for themselves: or that once a Pastor repeats something often enough, people should be excused for gobbling it up without personal reflection.

Entirely aside from the Bible and Religion, it is the sacred responsibility of every human being to reflect closely on his life, his purposes, his essence and the context and meaning of his existence - and no person can be excused for failing to do this. If any person has failed to do this and is spiritually lazy enough to allow himself to become the slave of some Pastor that is entirely his fault; the karma will rest squarely with him: and it will not avail him to point to the snake or to Eve in a plaintive plea aimed at avoiding responsibility. We are each responsible for ourselves and our spirituality.

The plain truth is that many of these people are driven by their own greed and nothing else. I have painfully explained to many that a gift given with the hope and intention of procuring a reward is spiritually empty. If these people are not able to appreciate this fact then the nasty truth is that they are and remain who they are: and are fully culpable for the evil visited on them by the rogue-pastor.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6174815#msg6174815 date=1276002514]Deep Sight, how could you write so much and say so little? Forgive me, but your circular reasoning and peculiar, self-congratulatory logic is beyond me. When you have something to say lesser mortals may understand as digestible, I'll try and stop getting on your bad side and pay attention. Don't let me stop you and justcool from walking off hand-in-hand into some Technicolour sunset though.

I give up on the 'war' of 'laws' and 'theories', Justcool. It's just semantics and pet definitions at cross-purposes. Changes nothing. Have it your way.[/quote]

Quote from Justcool -

I will give an example: The death of Sani Abacha is a fact. The notion that he was killed by Viagra is a 'theory.' This is a theory that explains why he died; but as long as this theory has not been proven wrong or correct, it remains a theory. If however, one finds an irrefutable evidence that Abacha was killed by Viagra, then notion that he was killed by Viagra becomes a fact and no longer a theory. From this fact a law may manifest. The law maybe that "whoever takes 1000mg of Viagra will die witten 10 minutes."

THIS IS BRRRRRRRRRIIIIILLLLLLLLLIIIAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^^^ I don't believe its possible for you to claim that people are "harmed" by the tithing scam: for the simple reason that its a free independent choice for everybody to make.

If a man allows himself to be fleeced by a tithe-mongering-pastor, that is his kettle of fish: he remains the mugu - and he certainly has a right to be a mugu as far as his religion is concerned.

We are all mugus for one thing or the other, afterall.

I just personally hate the idea of compulsory contributions (which anyway end up being used to purchase private jets).

I see no reason why giving to the poor and needy is not an equal or even superior fashion of giving to God.

@ KAG - before you dare use my above post in refutation of any past argument of mine (you know which one) remember that in this argument I refer to effects that extinct things have on a continuing world - whereas the previous argument reflected on a state of cessation altogether: to wit - if society is NOT eternal what does that the past mean in the context of an eventual absolute zero. We are not at that zero yet since we still exist, and recall it is my postive contention that zero in fact does not exist, and s such there will never be such a state of "nothingness" either in cosmic terms or in the existence of an individual being.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6170849#msg6170849 date=1275943038]We contributed to the extinction of some species. Like the dodos. How you managed to transmute that into humans contributed to the extinction of some species so we could find fossil fuels is beyond me.[/quote]Max: please do not excercise me in the direction of irritation. Irritation, I say - because it is perplexing when I have clearly stated something and you choose to mis-represent me YET again: for the second time i tell you now that I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THE ABOVE.

Can you show me exactly where i suggested that "humans contributed to the extinction of some species so we could find fossil fuels" ? ? ?

Rather I was explicit in stating that there are NO species that humans caused to be extinct which are now fossil fuels. I made this clear by explaining that humans have not been around long enough to cause a species to be extinct and also benefit from its decomposition into a fossil fuel. Decomposition into fossil fuels is a process that takes millions of years.

The entire thrust of what I stated was clear: namely that dead/ extinct animals are NOT a waste - contrary to what you claimed. Simple. Please do not quote me as saying that the purpose of the extinction of animals is so that man can have petrol. I did not say that. I said that the extinct animals are not wasted in nature. They impacted the ecology and thereby enabled further development. I will give an example.

Dinosaurs of many different kinds once populated the earth. During their sojourn on earth they impacted the environment in many ways, including eliminating certain species which may have been incompatible with the further development. Now at a point in time the Dinosaurs themselves had to go. If they never left the scene it may not have been possible for feebler dominant creatures such as man to survive. Thus everything is a magnificent process that moves in perfect sync. The existence of one creature has its purpose in time and when that purpose is done and the effect acheived that creature may be phased out in order to make room for the next development in the great trajectory. Nothing is wasted.

If we do not require fossil fuel to survive, and we don't need biological creatures to provide it, and you have no idea of the kind of creatures that existed in Precambrian times, how can you give us the fact that they became extinct so you may have fossil fuel?

For the umpteenth time: I DID NOT SAY OR SUGGEST THIS.

I stated that their existence is not wasted by the fact of their extinction. In much the same way as food is not wasted by its consumption: it ceases to exist - but delivers a purpose to the body and as such is not wasted. Similarly extinct species have delivered many purposes to the earth and as such cannot be considered a waste.

Of what use is this fuel when we have alternative energy sources? We may talk about the incidental benefits that accrue from long dead plants, but to imply that is a valid reason and motive for the extinction of 99% of the species is something I won't continue to argue with you about.

So long as you acknowledge that "incidental benefits" exist - then you accept that there is no waste.

And for the record yet again - I DID NOT SUGGEST THE ABOVE.

That millions of species thrived for millions of years and then vanished without a trace, when the PURPOSE OF BIOLOGICAL LIFE AND NATURAL SELECTION IS SURVIVAL, plainly shows all that time and effort to be a waste. 99%!

I laugh. Is mere survival the ultimate purpose of all things? Please think a little deeper. I am shocked that you can be so carelessly bold as to state that the existence of millions of creatures for millions of years amounts to a waste. Perhaps you are in the mind of the grand architect of all things, and you can see and decipher all the purposes that those crreatures may have effected upon the ecology of the earth, as to enable you to confidently conclude that their existence was a waste. You are garrulously presumptuous.

Whatever incidental  and temporary benefits dead plants may have towards powering your car has nothing to do with the fact that the destruction of 99% of biological life was a waste.

You must be omniscient. Because only omniscience may entitle you to make this reckless statement.

Our toil, sweat, science, medicine, architecture, culture, language, lives, love, history, kinship, friendships, technologies and everything else would vanish without a trace, but it's all right: Maybe some new species down the line will find our decayed bodies and use them as make-up.

I am certain that Dinosuars did not have medicine, architecture, science or technology. That which they did have they gave to the earth in terms of contribution to the ecology and further development as I have explained above.

Humans have much more. That which we do have, we also give to the ecology. Some good, some bad. Whatever happens our existence, even if we go extinct on this planet, cannot be a waste. There are trillions of worlds in existence and even if the earth remains nothing but a museum for the past existence of intelligent beings; that is still not a waste. We are not omniscient as to know what future beings will develop upon the earth and to what use that museum that we have provided may be put. Indeed it should occur to you that this evolution of human beings may not be the first evolution of human beings upon this very earth. The age of the earth can certainly accomodate many past and extinct civilizations of different evolutionary origins. The possibilities are just too wild and staggering: and this is what amuses me about the grand presumption of you who have lived for less than a century - making bold statements about how everything that existed for millions of years is all a "waste." What do you know, Max? Even as a scientist, the development of an ecological system gives a firm LIE to that assertion as it is necessary for ecologies to go through different phases - and this manifests as the generation and extinction of different species.

^^^ Do read carefully and note what I am saying and not what I am not saying.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6170126#msg6170126 date=1275934947]So you're saying 99% of extinctions, some of which humans contributed to, happened so we could have fossil fuel.[/quote]I DID NOT SAY THAT.

I said that those extinctions are NOT “a waste” as you called them – given that we still derive fossil fuels from the said dead creatures. I also stated that this is only one tiny example of various ways in which extinct creatures have impacted the ecology.

Also please note that there is no extinction that humans contributed to which provides us with any fossil fuels for the simple reason that we have not been around long enough for our ecological crimes to decompose into the chemical state of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel is a recent find. Is it crucial to our survival as a species? What of all the ages humanity did without fossil fuel? There are alternative energy sources being researched and found as we speak. We're not the only species on the planet. Of what use is fossil fuel to other species that survived as well?

You are on your own here as I never stated that we require fossil fuels. I simply stated that those dead creatures are not a “waste” – and that is a FACT: Fossil Fuels are one example of that fact. I could cite trillions of other examples if you wish.

Do you realise fossil fuel is got from DEAD plants and animals, not EXTINCT ones? If 99% of biological organisms had not become extinct,WE WOULD STILL HAVE HAD FOSSIL FUEL, because the death of the organism is all that is required for that, NOT the extinction of the organism.

That doesn’t change the fact that extinct animals are by necessary implication ALSO AMONG the dead animals – which are what fossil fuels come from.

So whichever way you look at it the fact remains the same; those extinct animals were not a waste because the impacted our ecology. SAME goes for every dead animal – whether or not extinct. They all impacted the ecology and as such there is no “waste.”

Besides, and most imprtantly, if 99% of all species that ever lived on the earth are now extinct, then it follows, logically from that percentage, that the vast majority of fossil fuels come from extinct species.

Let me tell you something; nature abhors a vacuum. Nothing is wasted in nature.

How you came to be privileged with the information that 99% of biological life perished so a species that hadn't arrived on the scene could drive a car millions of years later, is for you to vouchsafe.

Again, I never said such a thing. Your imagination is quite active.

And Deep Sight, there is no way for you to know the motive behind the extinction of most life on the planet. You can only speculate and guess. You can't know. Try acting like it.

We can certainly adduce many obvious reasons for extinction. Nonetheness your very statement implies that there was a purpose for such: and this is at variance with the thinking that extinct species are a “waste.”

Stick to the point.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6169063#msg6169063 date=1275925184]Lol Deep Sight, you seem very fond of semantics and ignore the meaning of the tense to take a word or two at their very literalest meaning, and branch off to unintended directions with that. Quantum physicits themselves called their observations 'impossible',' strange', 'bizarre',etc and by that they meant counterintuitive and nothing our everyday experience of the workings of nature would lead them to expect. They'll soon figure it out. It may just take time. As for the word falsifiable you like to pay so much attention to, lol, its meaning in science to scientists and laypeople alike is quite plain, I think.[/quote]Fair enough: I do not however like to leave things to lie about in an untidy heap; when persons like yourself deploy certain words carelessly you might not realise that your meaning may be lost on the careful and circumspect observer.

The fact remains that there is no “fact” that ever be falsified. Otherwise it was never a fact. Simple.

Nevertheless I do get your usage and so will not quibble in a pedantic fashion further: let us however be careful what words we deploy to pass across our intended meaning: especially when we consider that our audience does not exist in our own brain: ready to gloss over every mis-passage of our meaning.

The wastage in evolution is a fact of evolutionary science. Don't shoot me, I didn't discover it.

This is a most regrettable and shallow perception. Like I said before it contains a lamentable presumption that anything that no longer exists is therefore a waste. I am surprised that any scientist could arrive at such an ill considered conclusion. The existence of fossil fuels alone and the massive energy needs that they have filled for mankind’s technological advancement is more than sufficient to show that the existence of such things can never be termed a waste – given that their existence has impacted the ecology and provided elements essential for further development; fossil fuels being just one skeeny-weeny example. I could cite thousands.

The sun is middle-aged now. A time will come when it will die, expanding in its death throes and swallowing nearby planets, almost certainly including this one. If you believe in God it should make you think about where we're coming from, what we're doing here, what this planet is for, and what happens far far far in the future when this planet, and humanity, is no more.

In the vastness of the universe it is inconceivable that life exists only on earth. So the heck what if this minute and irrelevant solar system explodes and ceases to exist? There are trillions of worlds out there – nay, possible trillions of universes, even. When I die the magnetic state of my being will by natural laws be attracted to that world where my radiations find natural rhyme. Voila.

You equate food wastage with the extinction of 99% of the planet's species? O-KAY. THUMBS UP.

It must have missed you that consumed food provides energy for the body, just as extinct creatures provide fossil fuels today.

Think again, Max.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6168470#msg6168470 date=1275920164]Lol Deep Sight. English please. I think you know what falsifying a theory in science is. For a theory to be accepted as fact it would have testable
predictions and independent replication of results. Newton's Theory of General Relativity is hunreds of years old and still holds true. Yet scientists still look to falsify it, pushing it, as they do all theories, for weak links and holes. Unlike many religions where people don't want their 'truths' overturned, science works under no such obligation. It's these efforts that sometimes produce unexpected new insights, findings and applications. Einstein tinkered with newtonian theories, and found they held true as long as the objects are not moving at the speed of light. If they are, he predicted different results. Eistein's Theory of Special Relativity was born. It's been tested and found correct.[/quote]It is nice that you use the word “theory” – because that remains in perfect accord with the conception of that which may be changed with improved knowledge or “falsified.” Perhaps the very fact of room for improvement on such theories is the exact reason that science prefers the term “theory.” When,  however you chose the word “fact,” the stakes are higher, the obligations are adamantine and the functions or elements referred to are solid constants.

Thus 0 + 0 = 0 IS A FACT: and no amount of future scientific discovery can change or “falsify” that.

Newton's Theory is so stunningly accurate, astrophysicists can chart a space flight with incredible accuracy based on it. Hundreds of years later!

Then the elements of it that they use so reliably are probably existent facts which no future science will change: save perhaps manipulate to achieve different results.

When the sub-atomic world was discovered in the twentieth century, pre-existing scientific theories were naturally applied. In the case of sub-atomic motion, Newtonian theories of General Relativity. It was discovered that the Theory, while correct elsewhere, HELD NO WATER IN THE
SUBATOMIC WORLD, AND DID NOT HOLD TRUE THERE.

That only shows that the limitations of the application of the said theory were unknown: thus any person who had previously stated (relying on the theory) that such a theory was applicable everywhere, every time, and to everything – would clearly NOT have been stating a FACT, but a PRESUMPTION.

The discovery led to the mind-boggling, eye-popping, counterintuitive field of Quantum Physics. The sub-atomic world operates by its own laws and its own bizarre rules and impossible things were observed to happen.

Imposibble things are never observed to happen. That would simply mean that such things are actually possible. If an “impossible” thing happens, then it clearly is not “impossible” and obviously has only been presumed to be so.

There you'd find a particle passing through TWO points in space and time SIMULTANEOUSLY.

What is so “impossoble” or illogical about the above?

Are you one of those scientists who imagines that space-time is a “fabric?”

1. If you are: then if your fabric is folded the foregoing is easily achievable through a merger of two points in the said fabric into one point. However I personally do not believe this hocus-pocus as it must lead to severe cosmic imbalances if well considered. Nevertheless, that’s your “science.”

2. If you are not: then you likely subscribe to the infinity and intangibility of both space and time (which is my view): under which again, your query above becomes eminently feasible.

3. What if the particle is only observed seemingly passing two points in space and time as described: but not actually doing such in fact? What are the boundaries of perception? Perception is NOT reality, my  friend, it is only cognitive reality.

Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics."

It is a matter of time. Everything physical can be understood. Moses did not understand aerodynamics: so it is not a wonder if we do not understand quantum physics – future generations will.

If there's a pointer, however vague, that atheists shouldn't hold those who believe to be fools, it's in quantum physics. Nothing discovered therein surprises a spiritual person who knows there's more to life than meets the empiricist's laboratory and who, while appreciating and accomodating his religion to science, does not allow science to dictate those beliefs. Because there are realities beyond the present tools of science to investigate, scientists naturally favour explanations that fall within the tools they DO have. No one can blame them for that. But science is not the beginning and end of all knowledge, and there are things far beyond their tools to investigate for now.

Very well said. Nevertheless this should not form an excuse for the believer to jettison logic and science in favour of a faith devoid of logic.

Scientists seek to falsify theories, however established. But I think the question I was asking about evolution is pretty straightforward, unless you want to get bogged down in semantics. Human beings have a moral sense, a sense of justice, a notion of good and evil. We're appalled by acts of cruelty, and there is cruelty in nature, brought about by natural selection. Does the designer of evolution lack a moral sense in letting these things come about?

I repeat: from where did you get the apprehension that seeming cruelty in nature equates the absence of a moral sense by a creator? You did not read the link I provided, did you?

How does the existence of a food cycle in nature equate with evil?

Afterall we labour under the assumption that He/It is good. Is he good but incompetent, or competent but not benign?

Does the goodness of a supreme being devolve on protecting weak individuals (thereby making the group weaker and vulnerable) or in rewarding only the strong (thereby making the group stronger, more dynamic and fine-tuned to survival) ? ? ?

If you had a bird’s-eye view, such as a being who stands above time and space must have: WHAT WOULD BE YOUR PERCEPTION OF GOODNESS ? ? ?

Group interest or individual interest?

And evolution is terribly wasteful. They hazard that fully 99% of life forms that existed in Pre-Cambrian times are now extinct. The seemingly rich diversity of biological we seem to have now is a mere one per cent of what applied before. Why is evolution cruel and wasteful, and yet 'designed'? Any speculations?

Something can only be said to be wasteful if it served no purpose. By your analogy, food which you have eaten and is “extinct” is therefore wasteful, since it does not exist anymore. That is clearly mis-footed and misconceived. It served its purpose at some point within a system that still exists: and as such there is no waste. Ditto for the extinct species you mention: they have all contributed to what is the ecology of today. Thus, they were not a waste. Your concept of “waste” is altogether ill conceived and presumptuous.

In all exactitude and honesty: atheism connotes a logically deficient mind.

In this let me be clear:

1. Contrary to the claims of the OP it is delusional in the extreme to conceive of atheism as a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion: stating it so is signal of an alarming psycotic delusion requiring urgent medical attention.

2. Recognition of the existence of God, is different from belief in God.

3. If a person does not believe in God, or does not believe that knowledge/ worship of God is relevant to his life: that is fine.

4. It is quite another thing altogether to positively assert that God does not exist. That is equal to an assertion that causes do not exist; a direct denial of the finite rule of cause and effect and therefore an exhibition and advertisement of supreme idiocy and unrestrained stupidity.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6166764#msg6166764 date=1275900103]However, evolution is a 'theory' only in the sense that Newton's theories of gravity/ inertia or Eistein's theory of special relativity is a theory: It's a fact. A scientific theory is always falsifiable. Scientists todays relentlessly look to overturn the theories and facts of ages before, and there are no doubt many looking to falsify evolution, like they're trying to falsify Einstein's theories. That's one of the glories of science and what makes it so great. No complacence or resting on oars or laurels. If the theory of evolution is ever invaliated, we look forward to new facts that may emerge. For now, it is a FACT, and leading to revolutions and uniting many fields in Science, from biology to psychology to anthropology. There are new academic disciplines like Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology.[/quote]I positively assert to you that there is no such thing, nor has there ever been any such thing as a "fact" thay may be later "falsified" - for if it is falsified: then it clearly was never a "fact" - (unless you do not know the meaning of the word "fact." - clearly it was only a presumption.

Why is the process wasteful and cruel though? Why does it appear so incompetent, why the terrible cruelty in nature? There's nothing benign about nature itself, it's dog eat dog. The famous example is the wasp that paralyses a living spider, lays its eggs and they hatch and feed on the flesh on the still living spider. We kill things. Things kill us if they get the chance. I can understand why a mechanical process like natural selection would program a species to look out for number one at whatever cost to others, but why would a Creator do the same? We assume He has better morals than we do, naturally. What do you think happened there?

By what inference do you assume "better morals" to also denote, connote or infer a predilection towards soft or sympathetic notions of individual survival?

Please review the 2 opening posts here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-411142.0.html

In depth analysis (a direct consequence of a shortcoming) is a book of more than one enlightened contributor. Everyone writes a chapter, you see the problem is some of us want to pass their chapter off as the whole book.

My cousin wrote the foregoing to me regarding a football argument. I think it is also apt here.

Might i also point out that Jesus in his day was considered a heretic by conventional Juadaists.

So let us be careful when we assume that persons who do not espouse conventional doctrines are necessarily heretics.

A fitting response culled from Telegraph.co.uk -

Football’s vocabulary is constantly shifting, evolving, as the game itself changes. Fans now blanche at the prospect of being taken over by a multi-millionaire chairman, knowing that only a billionaire will be able to compete. Over the last three years, combative has lost its status as a desirable trait, now being synonymous with violence. Very few players are ever described as exotic – an adjective once applied to anyone from the other side of the Channel – thanks to the carnival of nations that the Premier League has become.

There are few better examples than the phrase “typical Arsenal.” Twenty years ago, typical Arsenal meant resolute, solid, defensive. A typical Arsenal win was by a single goal. A typical Arsenal result involved at least one clean sheet. Today, it means something entirely different. A typical Arsenal goal is one with countless passes in the build-up, the ball eventually tapped in from a matter of yards. A typical Arsenal performance prides aestheticism above almost everything else. That is Arsene Wenger’s legacy. In his spell in north London, Wenger has changed the club’s philosophy, its identity, completely.

So far, so obvious. But typical Arsenal has morphed more than just once, has taken on more than one meaning since Wenger stripped the club of its defensive hue. Six years ago, typical Arsenal did not mean what it does today. Take the goal that helped the club win its last league title, Patrick Vieira’s opener at Tottenham in 2004, created by Dennis Bergkamp and Thierry Henry. It was swift, beautiful and ruthless. It was direct, though not in the long ball sense. And it was devastating. Typical Arsenal.

It was the apogee of Wenger’s blueprint for success. His side possessed endless pace, in the likes of Henry, Freddie Ljungberg and Ashley Cole. Bergkamp boasted a profound awareness of how to use space, Ljungberg an inexplicable instinct for when to attack it. Their play had all the hallmarks of the cobra style Brazil will take in to the World Cup this summer, waiting, holding, and then striking. And they were physically imposing, too. Lauren, Vieira, Edu, Bergkamp, Henry, even the likes of Jose Antonio Reyes and Robert Pires. All stand at more than six feet tall. All relished physical confrontation.

That was Wenger’s true Arsenal. Compare and contrast to the clutch of players – a squad entirely constructed by Wenger – that Cesc Fabregas, his protege and masterpiece, seems convinced he will have to leave if he is to enjoy the success his talent deserves.

The average height of the side – Andrei Arshavin, Samir Nasri, Tomas Rosicky et al – has reduced, as has their appetite for what the aforementioned football lexicon might describe as an old-fashioned tear-up. They do not possess such power and pace – Theo Walcott apart – as their predecessors, and the wait-and-pounce technique has been replaced by simply waiting, passing opponents into submission. There is no ruthlessness to Arsenal. They are aesthetic, yes, but there are question marks over their effectiveness, or certainly its consistency.

Wenger’s original blueprint was copied throughout the Premier League, most notably by Harry Redknapp. His sides boast tremendous physical characteristics, but marry it with technical excellence, though perhaps not on the same scale. Even Roberto Martinez’s Wigan have the air of the Invincibles on a budget. Yet Wenger has torn it up and gone another way, no doubt convinced what works domestically would not bring him success in Europe.

In the end, it has done neither. Perhaps, then, should Fabregas decide to leave, Wenger may choose to look at his masterplan again, to learn from the mistakes of the present and to seek again the glories of the past, bringing in the sort of players that brought him such success. If not, typical Arsenal may soon mean something else again.

I have no problems with the idea of experiencing the moment. What I have tried to show, which peeps are just not getting: is that it is inconceivable, and illogical, that a purposeful life should end in nothingness. That is nothing short of nihilistic purposelessness - and I believe that this is not the case in this life that we live.

Energy is immortal. We know that neither energy nor matter can be destroyed: rather they only change state - I would think that this should be sufficient basis for the understanding that the "being" is also not destroyed: it merely changes state. This accords with the principle that nothingness does not exist; there is always something.

What Mazaje has rather said is that his life is a journey. At some point he comically tried to rescind that statement. But I argued that so long as his life is a progression that has a trajectory in time, then it is definitely analoguous to a journey. He further stated that that journey will end in nothingness. I therefore concluded that he believes his life to be a progressive trajectory towards nothingness. I wonder why that seems unpalatable to him as it is the irrevocable summary of his own stated worldview.

Can any of the Anti-WOFers kindly explain to me what is so heretical or reprehensible about the WOF? Because I have seen alot of criticism against the WOF and given what I have heard the WOF say, I am yet to see what is heretical about their teachings.

I would genuinely like to be advised.

Thanks.

I am a disgruntled Arsenal Fan and have been on Exile for about two years now: in protest against what i see as the club's greedy and ambitionless policies. I have a cousin resident in London who is equally (or more) passionate about the club. He does not share my views or my condemnation of the club. He is a die-hard supporter and scarcely ever criticizes the club or its management.

Recently i sent him a goal.com article titled -"We knew this day would come - the departure of Cesc Fabregas" - indicating that Cesc had put in a transfer request and I sought to let my cousin know that this was part of what i saw as the continuing depletion of the Club's top-level talent.

He reverted to me with the following write-up.

Although i do not agree with many of his points, I thought it so well marsharlled i could not resist sharing.

Here goes -

Indeed we did know this day would come. It was the grand plan from the on set that cesc would come and learn his trade and develop as a player at Arsenal because he would be granted the opportunity based on the culture at the club to gain all the experience he needed. Whether or not that tenure was filled with trophy after trophy winning season is irrelevant. By and large aside from African and south American players who leave their countries for obvious economical reasons most players in Europe are naturally inclined to prefer their home nation. In Cesc's case Barca is where he came from and more so they have thrived in his absence to become the finest football playing side on the planet. Wenger would always have less of an influence on his career decisions than his dad. Ferguson was surrogate father to Christiano Ronaldo but his mums dream, as well as his was that he would one day wear the Madrid shirt! We all know what happened there. As Graham Souness would say 'they are a latin kids' and invariably they will always crave going back home to sunny Espanyol. Therefore i don't blame the kid and i certainly dont blame Wenger for giving the world such a fine midfielder. That is that cleared up.

I admonish the overwhelming influence of the baying crowd and mob mentality and believe that the ideal thing to do is to take a step back and look at the bigger picture before yelling kill kill kill! One may have to live with that guilt for the rest of ones life.

I am also convinced that you are a fine and intelligent lawyer however you are an artist at heart and your knowledge of and understanding of financial accounting is limited. 'Being in the red' is a lay mans term and therefore a very effective expression therefore i crave you're understanding when i use it in this text.

Everyone is convinced that Arsene is a shylock and doesnt want to spend. You have personally labeled the board as greedy and unambitious forgetting that this is not a bunch of money miss road Nigerians who don't even know when they have stolen enough. As you know Peter hill wood is the third generation in his family to serve as chairman at Arsenal. Nothing about how the club is run stems from greed or lack of ambition. i honestly do not understand how cutting ones cloth accordingly became such a cardinal sin. The sooner football clubs are run within the financial resources at their disposal the better for the club side to be in existence 100 years on. Again i credit you with the intelligence of knowing where the bulk of football money comes from. The gates, tv broadcasting rights, shirts sponsorships and all other income generated from the football ground including hosting friendlies and advertisements and of course trophies. And this is what pays player and staff salaries from the board room to the tea lady. Ah and yes those massive transfer fees as well.

which brings me to my list of top European sides that are 'in the red'
1. Chelsea 726m pounds 2.Man united 717m 3.Barcelona 420m 4. Liverpool 394m 5. Real madrid 296m I am sure you get the picture.

The most ignorant to a clubs financial well being believe it or not are the players, whats their business as long as they get paid! But you can kind of understand why after all they do not carry university degrees and they are not obliged by society to be the clever clogs. However, ignorant fans (educated nonetheless) come a close second because until the club goes bust there philosophy is spend spend spend! Ring a bell (the mob mentality). Everything seemed rosie until Lehmann brothers went bust and Enron nearly a decade before now why do you think that is? You are aware of what is happening in Greece aren't you? Again i am sure you understand my point that when one has a superiority complex they will stop at nothing including accumulating debt to compete with their peers. I can only liken it to a father who selfishly pays 1m for his annual country club membership by dipping into his childrens university trust fund.

At the beginning of the season you urged me to enjoy another trophy less season and i did. I endured a few embarrassing defeats and applauded every team that did well when they deserved it because my love for the game comes first. You also deemed man city and Real Madrid as ambitious because of there irresponsible expenditure,  remind me how there seasons went. Blackpool just won promotion to the premiership. A club side with 13,500 ground capacity they did it by winning the play-offs with a team of which nine of the first eleven are on loan. They still clean their own boots and re-wash their jerseys for the next game how is that for ambitious?

By the way our debt is 26.5m and WE most recently borrowed largely to build a new ground now whilst you might not consider our standing in club football as remarkable, i do because victoria concordia crescit!

KAG:
Is this Deep Sight being as dishonest as ever? Colour me surprised. Now that you've run out of the range to give adequate responses to my posts, you should at least take the time to read them properly and try to understand the salient points that have sailed over your head. I won't be holding my breath.

Oh please quit the  chit chat right there missus. Your serial and embarrasing contradictions have since been exposed for anybody who is capable of reading, so what the hell would make you think I am prepared to waste my time any further with a quack scientist.

The alarming thing is that you keep regurgitating the self same contradiction which even a hare would spot, and you never spot it.

Let me just assist you one last time to see the firm reason you are not to be taken seriously in this discussion.

The question was if it is possible for something to emerge from nothing. I stated that it is not possible: you claimed that it is possible. In defense of your claim you cited virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.

YOU SAID -

KAG:
Virtual particles emerge from nothing into the universe.

Thereafter I pointed out to you that quantum vacuums are not “nothing” and as such your claim that virtual particles arise from “nothing” could not be sustained. I did also point out to you that scientifically there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum – namely that it is only a philosophical precept. ONLY after I had pointed these out did you revert conceding –

KAG:
Vacuums have a specific place in physics and in this instance they indicate something

- - - thereby conceding that Vacuums are not nothing.

You then went on to say –

KAG:
What has been said also is that short of the probability of uncertainty, a vacuum possesses nothing.

WHICH IS AN OUTRIGHT FALSITY BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS THAT – THE SAID VACUUMS HAVE GASEOUS PRESSURE – ONLY MUCH LOWER THAN NORMALLY OBSERVED ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE!

Now in case you are suffering selective amnesia, when I pointed out all these to you, this is what you said –

KAG:
That was my fault. I should have been more specific. It was sloppy on my part.

KAG:
I apologised for being sloppy in my depiction of vacuums.

Thus acceding that you were wrong to equate a quantum vacuum to an instance of “nothing” (or “nothingness” - your pick).

So please do not dare patronise me with any high-sounding rhetoric. The fact of the matter is simple and clear for all to see: your claim that virtual particles EMERGE from “nothing” IS SCIENTIFICALY FALSE – AS THE VACUUM YOU REFER TO IS NOT NOTHING – AND THIS HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVED

Heck, even the fact that such vacuums contain a time-energy uncertainty is more than enough to show that whatever else they may be, they still ARE NOT nothing! Aside from this recall they also contain low gaseous pressure.

So, to borrow from my friend viaro – quit the “linear tarradiddle” and sharpen up for once.

Now when you display such shocking incapacity to read your own contradictions, how do you expect me to bother with the following nonsense –

KAG:
No. A philosophical absolute - even more so than any other conception of an absolute - involves claims and/or arguments built on the present or prevalent scope and findings at a particular time. So, for instance, the certainty that nothing while on earth can flow up hill in defiance of gravity, all effects or occurrences must have an immediate cause, and that spontaneous generation of the kind where complex organisms appear were all philosophical absolutes. They were declared certain, sacrosanct and unable to defied in any way. However, new discoveries have shown otherwise.

Therefore, yes, absolutes have been changed and debunked by new scientific discoveries.

- - - -  Whereat you show a lamentable incapacity to distinguish between an absolute and a presumption ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You sincerely expect me to bother with the many other nonsensical postulations you have made when you yourself have given hearty concessions such as this –

KAG:
As the uncertainty principle prevents anyone from knowing the exact energy of a given space at a precise time, [size=16pt]it becomes impossible to have a space with zero energy - which is what you will need for a true vacuum.[/size]

- - - - which concedes entirely that there is NO SPACE ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME WITH ZERO ENERGY. . .

So where is this magical “nothing” that you are imagining?

I repeat: you are a quack voodoo priest.

Alice in wonderland.