₦airaland Forum

Jenwitemi:
I have not the intention of being drawn into the definition thing. . . useless endeavour. Nothingness is an illusion, anyway. [size=16pt]Everything comes from already existing somethings, which in turn originated from already existing somethings. . . The BTS factor.[/size]

Great. And this positively destroys your previous assertion that man may create "out of nothing."

You contradict yourself.

Firmly I believe and truly
God is Three, and God is One;

Gentlemen read the quote above.

Is there any further evidence required of the gravest and most extreme derangement?

GOD IS INFINITE.

nuclearboy:
What we say on the other hand is that Jesus, the Father and the HS are co-equal.

To what extent will you not go to contradict and "explain away" exactly what your lord said? Why do you delight in calling Jesus a liar? ? ? ? ?

Contradiction: If they were all the same person, you would not have to describe them as "equal."

The very word "equal" connotes two entities that balance out in weight. Nobody bothers to describe himself as being equal with himself.

If i talk now, una go say i hate christianity: yet you are not ashamed to bandy about such sickening and contradictory superstitions.

I tell you today that every time you compare Jesus of Nazareth to God, YOU BLASPHEME GOD. YOU SHOW YOURSELF TO HAVE NO REGARD FOR THE CREATOR. YOU SHOW YOURSELF TO LIVE IN UTTER HATRED AND CONTEMPT OF SCRIPTURE. FOR SCRIPTURE STATES - I AM THE LORD, YOU SHALL WORSHIP NONE ELSE AFTER ME. . . THERE IS NONE LIKE ME AND BESIDE ME THERE CAN BE NO OTHER. . .

It is frankly embarrasing that you claim that Jesus returned to equality with the father when he ascended. For Revelation very clearly indicates him still "receiving authourity" from "the one on the throne" and "sitting beside" the one on the throne. . .

I assert to you today that you are an ancestor-worshipper as you worship a late human being. There is nothing even remotely "thesitic" about your belief system, and if at all there is then you are a polytheist, a cultist happy to worship a Jewsih man. I can conceive of no lower form of spiritual engagement. If at all the word "spiritual" may be applied to the ancestor worship that you so fanatically brandish.

nuclearboy:
See what these deluded WOFers are causing?

I have asked you this question several times and and you never answer it. Perhaps it cannot be answered? I repeat -

  1. WOF members claim Divinity (according to you)

  2. YOU claim that a proven mortal Jewish man is GOD.

What makes you better than the WOF? You both ascribe Divinity to men, afterall.

So how dare you call them deluded? Cos looks to me like y'all are in the same presumtuous boat.

Enigma:
Going by your post, following questions arise:

1. Are you distinguishing between God and god (or a god)?

2. How many Gods (capital G in God) are there?

3. Is there more than one God (capital G)? {this is question 2 in a different way}

4. How many gods (small g) are there?

5. Is Jesus God (capital G), or god (small g) or simply a god?

I still cannot contemplate what state of hallucination or exhausted cerebral laundry will compel a man to conceive a foreigner as Almighty God.

You can yet imagine that same man will dain to look down on his ancestors for being in awe of the white man.

Notwithstanding that with the privilege of education all he can now do is go a step beyond his ancestors and actually worship same foreigner as ALMIGHTY GOD.

THIS STINKS.

Jenwitemi:
The main thing is that we can create from nothing too.

I POSITIVELY DEMAND OF YOU -

1. THAT YOU DEFINE FOR ME WHAT THE TERM "NOTHING" MEANS OR REFERS TO, AND -

2. THAT YOU STATE TO ME WITH LOGICAL AND EMPIRICAL DETAIL HOW ANYTHING MAY ARISE FROM, OR BE CREATED FROM NOTHING.

FOR I ASSERT TO YOU THAT 0 + 0 = 0, AND THAT THIS CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT SOMETHING MAY NEVER ARISE FROM NOTHING.

Jenwitemi:
I think that we are ignoring the BTS factor here, folks. By BTS factor, i mean the "B[/b]ehind [b]T[/b]he [b]S[/b]cene" factor. What is the "behind the scene" of this universe? The BB and the concept of a creator confirms that already. If their is a creator of something (the universe in this case), then there has to be a BTS of that something.

The BTS of the universe will, of course, contain the irrefutable informations on the process that set in motion and brought the universe in which we exist, into existence. But since we are all locked within this universe, how can we look outside of it to see the process of creation or get the identities of the creator(s)? We can't, meaning we are very limited in knowing how it was done.

And because we can't, all our subsequent arguements will be based on mere speculations, and that also includes the biblical creation myths, yes, myth[b]s because there are two of them in the genesis. Interestingly enough, one of the two creation myths showed creation out of nothing(or exnihilo, as viaro puts it), and the other showed creation out of something that already is( creation of Adam and Eve). That there are two creation stories in the book of genesis is irrefutable, so let no one even bother to argue about that.

I was ripping out audios from some video files a while back and something was happening that got me thinking a bit. I set the output of these audio file to my desktop and started the ripping. Then i leaned back and watched the audio files materialize one after the other seemingly out of nothing on my desktop. I found that very interesting, even if i was not surprised.

Why was i not amazed witnessing audio files seemingly materializing from nothing? You guessed it, the BTS factor. I am the person behind the scene and i knew exactly what the process was to make this materializing happen. I was the person using the software to make the process possible. Now imagine the desktop as a world in which sentient beings are living and witnessing all these materializing. Ofcourse they will be amazed! Why is that? Because they have no way of having the knowledge of the BTS to see who is causing the materializing of all these aufio files and how that person is doing it, so they are all left with all sorts of speculations.

Now, remove the desktop and put the universe we live in and you will all see quite clearly that we are all in such a situation right now playing with all kinds of speculations and using them as arguementation bases. Ridiculous, ain't it? We know way too little of the BTS of the universe to prove anything empirically. Unless somebody wants to argue that there is no behind the scene to this universe. If that is the case, then that person need to provide evidence to back that up.

Brilliant - but your succeeding post is appalling. . . .

^^^ Nor would he have guessed with what stupenduous docility they were willing to be led, a pack of thoughtless sheep, led into the misty sea of foreign superstitution. . .

No originality to SCREAM, My LIGHT, my LORD. . . no culture to know the unk of their own. . .

But to scream and scream. . .

In the night. . . the hollowness and falshood of the empty foreign dogma that ruled their empty minds.

Enigma:
Blessed be God Almighty
Three in One, One in Three
Co-equal, Consubstantial, Co-eternal

Stranger to the blue world, circling the red star, the visitor, tired from the tour, the magnifence of the history of the bold and mighty beings, would never have guessed with what puerile stench they were wont to attach themselves to hallucinatory inanities.

Kobojunkie:
. . . we tend to delude ourselves into believing OUR situation is SPECIAL and needs SPECIAL solutions, when in reality, what we are dealing with today has been dealt with over history in other places and solutions have been found and implemented successfully.

Really? And for how many centuries were corrupt Lords and Barons specially protected by the Crown in England?

UP TILL THIS DAY, the United States stands morally complicit in reprehensible blood-for-oil international heists and the persons responsible boldly strut the corridors of power.

What you are seeking is a delusion: IT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHEIVED ANYWHERE IN HISTORY BEFORE.

And you comically imagine that Nigeria would be the first to acheive it. Wise up.

macnuel:
Deep Sight, hold on. The search for an utopia is not far fetched. But what Kobojunkie does not understand that I need her to realise is that right now, selective justice may seem prevalent but it is what will ultimately bring about a balance in the system. Let me rephrase Deep Sight's analogy about wolves. They'll feast on themselves until what is left is a pack that will be chased out by the innocence and resilience of the deer. Nigeria's utopia cannot jump in. That is one fact i'm quite certain of. It's something I imagine would come about one day. But at the beginning of this thread, Deep Sight called our attention to one fact: it can't happen all of a sudden. It will take years. It may not be in our own generation but it will definitely come about. The fight for independence and democracy was fought by some and that few aren't living today to see what their fight had given birth to. Yet it has materialised. One thing we must put in mind is this: we won't stop this fight. We won't quit our battle of words. Selective justice may not be pleasant today. It may be what has become the order of justice but while our cry for true justice remains, selective or no justice gives way. I rest my case.

macnuel:
@kobojunkie
i get your point. Selective justice is bad. It seems to be no justice at all but what we are trying to say is, even though it looks like no justice, it is better than having none. Half bread they say is better than none. Unless of course there is a solution, what we have is what we have. We aren't pleased with it either. In the midst of all this justice nonsense, we have seen people who have stood up against joining these WOLVES. That alone gives us hope that there will be a better Nigeria than there is now. And just in that same nature they'll keep appointing people who'll not give in to them. This issue is a big tree that can't be made to stop growing unless we uproot it. And that starts with everyone I believe is reading this post. That was why I said, we would not rest or stop this battle of words. For now, it is the only weapon we have and we'll make use of it until we have a better weapon. But then, I need to ask a question: since for now all that there is is selective justice or rather no justice, what do you suggest we do. Reason: i haven't seen a solution in all that we've been saying here. I and some people here suggested that we wait and see while these "WOLVES" consume each other cos it's the only thing we feel will bring about balance. You disagreed. Fine with me. We're here to talk to reason. What do you think can be done? I guess that should be the purpose of this argument. Over and out.

A Daniel has come to justice. Hallelujah.

Right. There is no need to engage KAG further. She herself was forced to admit that quantum vacuums are NOT nothing and as such her claim that virtual particles emerge from "nothing" (a quantum vacuum) collapses FLAT ON ITS FACE AB INITIO.

Why are people so arrogant that they keep pursuing an absurd lie even when they themselves have acknowldged that it is false? ? ?

Kobojunkie:
This is a discussion forum and not a place where you BULLY people into doing things your way and your time.

Are you feeling bullied? By what? Aa simple query as to WHAT you are doing to help the situation?

That shouldn't make you feel bullied. Just answer the question.

The fact remains that your contribution to the fight against corruption so far is simply the DENUNCIATION of the arrest of corrupt persons.

If instead of arguing your point maturely, you feel what you should do instead is try to insult your way through it all, note that it does not in anyway take away from what has been said on this issue in any way.

When did i insult you? ? ? ?

^^^ And what EXACTLY are YOU doing about it?

Sitting about and DENOUNCING the arrest of some of the wolves on grounds that -

1. They are being arrested by wolves also

2. Other wolves have not yet been arrested.

Wow, you are really doing alot to help the situation.

^^^ Keep waiting for eldoraldo.

ziga:
I don't know how you expect people who benefit from a system to auto-magically start to implement the Law perfectly.

GBAM! GBAM! ! GBOSA! ! ! This is the winning post of this thread.

Wirinet, Pro01, Kobojunkie, you chaps are all seeking an utopia in the most wretched land of all. You expect the more than 100 milliion hideous Nigerian corruption-lovers to suddenly and magically blossom into noble anti-corruption Knights. You are dreaming. It AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

When wolf eats wolf, seat back and complain about wolf's wicked intentions. Perhaps if wolf regurgitates eaten wolf, and there remain more wolves, you would then be happy.

Good grief.

KAG:
From wiki:

"In the West, the references to atoms emerged a century later from Leucippus, whose student, Democritus, systematized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter". Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)

I learnt of the origin of the concept of atoms, the notion of them being indivisible, and its philosophical import in primary school. I guess it's your turn to learn of them. You can thank me later.

Trash. Balderdash. Bunkum. Not even half close. You astonish me with your logical deficiencies. Perhaps if you found that flying objects were first conceived of by Socrates, you would conclude that aeronautics is a branch of philosophy. Afterall, everything, including flight, has a "philosophical import." I laugh.

I stated very clearly that I referred to philosophical absolutes. In this regard I was unequivocal in stating that such absolutes cannot be changed by science.

Now can you tell me how the notions advanced by the Indians and Greeks can be termed “absolutes?” What is an absolute, for heaven’s sake KAG? ? ? Do we have to haggle over and define every word as we go along?

An absolute is something which is logically closed and not open to alteration or corruption of any sort. Thus I may state that a logical absolute is that a shape cannot be a perfect square and a perfect circle at the same time – and because this is an absolute, no amount of science is going to change this fact.

In the same way I gave you 0 + 0 = 0. This is a philosophical, mathematical and logical absolute. No amount of, combination of, or agglomeration of zeroes will EVER amount to anything other than same zero: this is an absolute: and it is the absolute that shows that no conception of “nothings” can ever deliver a “something.”

Science CANNOT change that. In your attempt to contradict that you claimed that things do pop out of nothingness – and for this you adduced the example of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. WELL SORRY THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE COMPREHENSIVELY SHOWN THAT A QUANTUM VACUUM IS NOT “NOTHING” SCIENTIFICALY SPEAKING AND YOU SINCE APOLOGIZED FOR YOUR SLOPINESS ON THAT!

Now what you pathetically presented as evidence that philosophical absolutes can be changed was the fact that a theory, a mere notion, conjecture by certain ancient minds – regarding the indivisibility of a unit was disproved by latter science!And you had the nerve to present this as a philosophical ABSOLUTE – which has been changed by science? ? ? ? ?

How was it ever an absolute? By what logical suppositions was it an absolute? ? ?

You amaze me!

No, I gave an example of a philosophical notion made absolute that was adopted by modern science and shown wrong by continued discoveries.

KAG, HOW THE HECK WAS SUCH A NOTION “MADE ABSOLUTE?”

I have already explained above what an absolute is. Who made those ancient conjectures absolutes? Absolutes are not even made, they simply ARE.

An absolute by its very nature is an ineluctable FACT, an adamantine TRUTH and CANNOT be “shown wrong” by any discovery.

Unless you will show me the discovery that means that 0 + 0 = 0 will become false. Or produce shapes that are perfect squares and perfect circles simultaneously.

You are terrifyingly off the mark.

I'd wager I have a better idea of what philosophy is than you do.

Do not struggle to impress: the fact that philosophers have made their conjectures regarding indivisible matter DOES NOT avail you as grounds for citing the indivisibility of matter as “philosophy.” The fact is that this is SCIENCE,  - which deals with physical material things and no amount of pondering by any ancient sages on the subject will ever translate into the excuse you seek for regarding the divisibility of an atom as “philosophy” and worse: as a “philosophical absolute.” You still do not know what philosophy is.

Perhaps if you found that flying objects were first conceived of by Socrates, you would conclude that aeronautics is a branch of philosophy, and that its principles are “philosophical absolutes!” You are so ridiculously funny! I laugh.

Let me just help you: there is a philosophy of everything, but it should be clear to you the area of philosophy that is relevant to the subject of our discourse: it will not be apt to cite an early philosopher’s perception of a forest as grounds for claiming that forestry is philosophy.  I will not say more than this and I hope you get the hint.

Alice in wonderland.

^^^ Hi. I was referring to the English Common Law which is the basis of Nigerian and Commonwealth Jurispruence.

viaro:
The point is this: we all should understand that the Universe is MUCH MORE OLDER than the Earth - the angels were there in the created Universe and in time witnessed the formation of the EARTH and other planetary bodies. That is the point I wanted to get across to mazaje.

Hi Viaro,

Ofcourse the universe predates the Earth, but are you sure it is apt to say that "the angels were there in the created Universe?"

Do angels reside in the physical universe. . .might they be camping on Mars, for example?

The point is: the heavens they dwell in is said to be a transcendental spiritual realm and not any part of the "created universe."

Now if that is the case, then they could observe anything in the physical universe - earth or stars - without necessarily implying that either came before the other.

@ Mazaje - I verily state to you that if you are able to define EXACTLY what a singularity is, and describe its full nature and full properties, (you cannot, and no scientist or mortal can) - you will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

@ Gamesmart

@ SEFAGO

Legal clarifications.

  1. Fundamental Human Rights do not originate from any international charter. As Gamesmart (and Fela Anikulapo Kuiti) stated - they are inherent.

  2. Consent between adults is essential to sexual relationships.

  3. Sexual relationships may however be subjected to reasonable limitations in terms of public affront only (e.g. Public Nudity, Public Copulation)

  5. Incest is not a criminal offence. R.ape/ Se.x with a minor is. It is not legally permisibble in Nigeria to marry a person within the bounds of affinity or consanguinity. 

  6. There is no criminal offence called polygamy. There is an offence called Bigamy.

Ride on with your debate.

Viaro -

I may be mistaken, but i think with reference to the point about angels, the heavens, and the angels having observed creation. . .

I think what Mazaje was pointing at was the fact that the Stars were mentioned in terms of creation after the Earth was mentioned (for me this is neither here nor there). In attempting to show him that this does not mean that the Stars were not already there, you stated that Angels observed the creation. He, for his part, did not see that that was relevant.

His reason for rejecting the relevance of that piece could be that the stars are a part of the physical universe - whereas Angels are said to reside in "heaven" - (which "heaven" in terms of this reference is understood to be a non-physical spiritual realm - that's why he pointed that out).

I think the existence of Angels in heaven observing a physical creation cannot prove that the bible teaches that physical stars are said to be in existence before the earth is created. Because if the bible does teach that the Earth was there first, that would by no means prevent angels in heaven from observing any such process. I don't know if I have elucidated Mazaje's point correctly, or if I have misapprehended yours.

toba:
High mazaje,Deepsight and viaro, before i join this honorable discussion let me know the basis of the discussion and the view point of each of u

Thank you

^^^ I am not sure that I qualify as a discussant in this thread yet. I have made only two very off-tangent posts so far.

However it seems strange to me that after the great lengths that Signor Viaro and Herr Mazaje have gone to in presenting their views, you would be asking them what the subject is and what their views are? ? ? ? ?

Come now, Toba.

mazaje:
Does oneness of infinity have a voice?. . . .

Having been shown that there can be no voice without energy, and that energy tranlates to matter. . . this is the best you could come back with? ? ?

Quote from Mazaje -

Really? I will like to see the evidence you have that show  your God speaking the universe into existence. . . .Or is this one of the baseless assertions that has no evidence for it?. . . .What language did he use? How does voice turn into matter?. . . .I will really like to know these things. . . .

1. Energy can be turned into matter and vice versa. That's science.

  2. No voice (or any other cognisable animation) is conceivable without energy.

  3. A voice therefore contains energy.

  4. Energy, as stated above, can translate to matter.

  5. Resolved Question: God's voice can tranlate to matter.

@ KAG -

I am not able to respond intoto now, but let me just note yet another disastrous statement from you.

It worries me that a person of obvious proper schooling such as yourself would persistently make such pedestrian, nay, calamituos gaffes.

I had stated -

"That mankind is able to make scientific advancements does not in any way mean that core philosophical essentials which are absolutes can be changed."

And you reverted with -

"Actually, scientific advancements does mean that philosophical essentials and absolutes can be changed. One quick offhand example: "an atom is the smallest unit of matter and cannot be divided into anything else."

I ASK YOU KAG - SINCE WHEN DID THE SUPPOSITION OF AN ATOM BEING THE SMALLEST UNIT OF MATTER BECOME PHILOSOPHY? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

IS THAT NOT RATHER SCIENCE? ? ? ?

I stated to you that science cannot change phylosophical absolutes. You denied that and as proof gave an example of improved science changing previous science? ? ? ?

This simply shows that you have no idea as to what philosophy is.

It would therefore be presumptuous of me to imagine that you would understand what i meant by a "phylosophical absolute."

Heaven help me.

^^^Gbam! Beautifully summarized!

wirinet:
Now are you saying the people that carved the statue of lady justice are foolish?

Justice is what it is: and indeed I do have some grasp of the subject, having studied both natural and positive jurisprudence. But even jurisprudence I must state is vastly limited when it comes to the practical realities of the development of social psychology.

I need you make something clear: BALANCE – in two senses – societal and individual.

Societal Balance of Justice demands that that which is good for the goose should be good for the gander in a just society – for this reason it is incontestable that we all desire that ALL corrupt elements be equally prosecuted.

Individual Balance of Justice demands that each man individually will reap what he sows: a karmic effect if you like – namely that if you jump up you will fall down, and that what goes around comes around.

Thus in the first sense we speak about societal equality, social justice. In the second sense we speak of justice to the individual.

I posit to you that the fact that justice at the societal level has not, or cannot be attained is no grounds to reject the application of justice to specific individual cases.

In this regard I will further argue that THERE IS NO SOCIETY where perfect justice at the societal level HAS EVER been attained.

I therefore contend that if you will hinge your argument on this: then we will be faced with a situation whereat we must summarily cease to apply justice at the individual level waiting eternally for the elusive day when mankind can do perfect justice at the societal level.

Real justice should be institutional and not personal, that is the only way justice can work. You pass through the process if and when your are caught. For example Iwu was accused of withdrawing about N2.8 billion in one week without any reason, the institutions involved should immediately commence investigation and not wait to be prompted by higher powers. If it was found to be false, they should tell us so and if it has some merit, they should proceed naturally to the next level - the courts. Same should apply for the siemens and hailburton cases and also the Okigbo Report. They should not wait until somebody falls out with the government before they go and dust up the cases. That is does not mean prosecuting every body at the same time, and is not selective justice.

Are you not contradicting yourself here?

In one breadth you acknowledged that other societies have been through phases of selective justice.

In another breadth you condemn the selective justice ongoing in these parts as being unacceptable even at this time.

I ask you: is it your expectation that Nigeria would leap-frog natural social developmental processes by magic, and suddenly have a perfect and just system such as you have described above? Of course not! This is going to take years, decades, if not centuries, as it has elsewhere.
Now here is the critical question: in the intervening time, what do we do? Do we declare – “well folks, we are not yet mature enough to deliver perfect and non-selective justice, thus all men to your tents, and no man will be prosecuted for anything”? ? ? ? ? ?

That is clearly impossible. Rather I have previously posited that as is natural for every developing society we will start with primitive vendettas and personal retributions – as is the case now – and these retributions will in themselves constitute a check and balance on the system: whereat each man for the selfish aim of protecting his own interest will realize that he is safer if he stays away from acts such as corruption, so that his enemies can pin nothing on him. As time passes the process refines itself gradually, and the institutions witch-hunting those corrupt persons grow stronger and stronger over-time through the exposure of this or that corrupt person. In the fullness of time we have a situation where the institutions take full reign over the personalities.

This is not going to happen overnight: and I do not know if it will be completed even in our lifetimes. Elsewhere it has taken centuries.

But the two salient points to the issue are these –

1. NOWHERE, AND IN NO SOCIETY has perfection in this regard ever been achieved: in other words EVEN in the societies that you imagine justice works perfectly: this is not the case – there is EVERYDAY in EVERY NATION UP TILL TODAY, much selective justice, and this is a FACT. Would you thus suggest that the prosecution of criminals in those societies should be condemned, on account of the fact that selective justice still occurs? ? ? ?

2. Whilst we strive towards perfection; wherever at the individual level a corrupt case is found, and the State garners the nerve (for whatever reasons) to prosecute it, such should not be condemned as it is part of the gradual process that will eventually ensure a less corrupt society. One less thief is always a gain.

The best that we should do is bay loudly for the blood of the others as well.

^^^ I am surprised he could not grasp that simple point.

1. He says corruption is not as serious as murder

2. He then says he actually supports the death sentence for corruption!

What a guy. Despite this, he asks why the "maximum force" since corruption is not that serious?

Unspeakable contradictions!

Abeg, i gat better things to do than discuss with this guy.

@ Wirinet -

I am dissapointed.

Am i to deduce that until the UTOPIAN, PERFECT AND IDEAL day dawns in Nigerian History, when EVERY CRIMINAL IS PROSECUTED AT THE SAME TIME, AND NOT EVEN ONE FOR PERSONAL REASONS - - - - - THEN WE SHOULD FOR NOW DROP ALL CHARGES AGAINST IBORI AND CO? ? ? ?

KAG:
First, one of the things to which I referred is in the Bible - the Bible does preach a stationary earth. It was this that informed the Church and helped them to determine that Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, et al. must be wrong. It was to the detriment of science. So much for your book.

I vehemently resent your reference to the Bible as “my book” – I have stated to you that it is not my creed, and there are members of this forum who will swear that it is the thing I revile most.

The simple fact however, is that as much as it is riddled with myths, fantasies, absurdities, outright falsehoods, mistranslations and the like, it is also riddled with many true and startling facts. I do not wish to spend much time on this save to ask you if you ever studied Literature in English? ? ?

Because I am disgusted that a CLEAR figure of speech – such as “pillars of the earth” could be read by you to mean that the Bible-Writer supposed three-dimensional physical pillars to be upholding the Earth. I needn’t expatiate on this as it is clear for any person to see that that was a figure of speech. If you will study the style adopted by many Old Testament prophets, you will understand this better. So please the misconceptions of the Roman Church are theirs alone.

Second, not to split hairs but the Bible doesn't state that the Earth is a sphere. Instead, it claims that the Earth is a circle.

You ARE splitting hairs. (x) How would the writer express himself? (y) How many of his contemporaries even conceived of it as a “circle?” Oh please, feed me with steel, and not rubber, Madam KAG.

Nevertheless I must make it clear that I do not wish us to dwell on the subject of the bible: unless either of us is so unreasonable as to regard it as 100% True or 100% False. Evidently, neither is the case: nor do either of us hold it as a creed – so please, if you will permit, I prefer to focus on the philosophical and scientific aspects of this discussion in which I believe you have made evidently false presumptions and are simply NOT being man (or woman) enough to square up to them.

Instead, what we have had from you has been sloppy logic,

- - - such as my statement that something cannot come from nothing?

. . . dire mathematics

Such as 0 + 0 = 0? – Which of course, if it never occurred to you, is the mathematical proof of my statement that nothing will always equal nothing, and will never approximate to a something.

Grasp that is you can, Alice.

. . .and handwaves when faced with science.

O ho ho ho ho ho. . . such as the science that led you to comically construe a quantum vacuum as “nothing”? ? ? ?

And then attempt to retract your words dishonestly, when I, a non-scientist, drew out the facts of the nature of a quantum vacuum for you?

Do you imagine that once one is not a scientist, he has no rational brain, and as such you can pull the wool over our eyes just by uttering scientific jargon? ? ?

However, I can deny the existence of gods because they have so far proved a necessary human construct with almost no evidence despite the extraordinary claims made of them.

I doubt that you know what GOD IS: or what gods are.

Because it is strange that with the mass of the known universe sitting about you, and the mathematically unlikely existence of intricate organs (such as the eye, to cite but one), you can see “almost no evidence” of superior intelligence?

But no matter, you are entitled to your delusions and serial contradictions. (I cannot forget the many you fed me on in the last thread, such as “purposeful beings in a purposeless universe” [such a shallow statement], Universe emerging from vacuum, but its contents [which are the universe itself] not emerging from vacuum. . .oh, KAG!)

What are the qualities of "IFA". What makes it a god. Like I stated, when the god is presented by its adherents, then it can be falsified. Your move.

That we do not go off on a tangent, I will in future open a thread specifically to discuss IFALOGY.

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself.

If you are incapable of grasping a simple representation I cannot help you. I wonder what sort of mind is unable to see that we use the figure “1” there on a representational basis – as the sum of sets in the universe is at all events an unknown and possibly unknowable quantity.

In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

Tragically wrong. Because 0 = 1, which you have set forth, would mean that your “vacuum,” = the universe. Such inverse reasoning leads to the conclusion that the universe IS a vacuum. That it is EQUAL to a vacuum. Can you sustain that? Aha.

Rather 0 + 1 which I set forth envisages a situation whereat an element was introduced into what YOU would describe as a vacuum – and that that introduction initiated an expansion that today forms the universe.

Nothing else can explain the fact that the universe began to expand at a point. Why not previously? Why at that point? This can only be explained as I have said above if there was a change within the pre-existing singularity, that caused the expansion to begin.

Hence the cosmological argument: “whatever BEGINS to exist, has a cause”

I assume that you are at home with the fundamentals of the cosmological argument. In brief, it goes thus –

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The Universe began to exist

3. The Universe thus has a cause.

Now it is inconceivable to imagine any “cause” within the sort of vacuum you have laboriously tried to construct: which at all events we have shown to be at variance with even the very handicapped scientific discoveries regarding such vacuums.

I therefore re- assert to you that the only logical path of reasoning is that there must have been an intervention as a cause.

Otherwise nothing would exist.

Actually, nothingness and nothing aren't interchangeable and are distinct both philosophically and scientifically. So, yeah, my understanding of the term still trumps yours.

At this point instead of the empty boasting you have persisted on, may I request you to adduce your definitions of “nothing” and “nothingness” in terms of this discussion.

I have already stated mine: nothingness is an absolute no thing – it represents a state of absolute zero: and I state to you again that by this very definition there is nothing like nothingness – it does not exist anywhere – any more than zero represents anything other than Zilch. Empty. Not there.

It was inconceivable for images to be sent thousands of miles to a receiving "box" used for viewing. It was inconceivable that a particle could be affected by what happened to another many miles away. So far the findings give an indication in that direction. I hope you can wrap your head around the fact that, once again, an argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy and not a rebuttal.

What are you on about here? That mankind is able to make scientific advancements does not in any way mean that core philosophical essentials which are absolutes can be changed.

Thus, conquer the universe, and engineer new planets, if you will, that will not change the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 and as such something cannot sprout from nothing.

Is it possible to have a zero in a numbers set, or, do we claim that just because it is a numbers set zero can't exist within it? The answer is obviously the former. The same applies to the universe and a vacuum.

Nope. We only have zero in a set to indicate a state where there is NOTHING as opposed to a state where there are quantities. That nothing remains nothing – and as such does not exist.

If you even half-thought this through you would recognise what I am saying: Check this out.

1. Between No. 1 and No. 2 – there exists an INFINITE number of fractions.

2. Between No 1 and ZERO. . . start counting backwards. 1, - - 0.9 - - - .0.8 - - - 0.7 ….0.2 - - - 0.1 - - - 0.09 - - - 0.08 - - - 0.07. . . . . infinity. .

3. You will count the fractions to infinity and YOU WILL NEVER ARRIVE AT ABSOLUTE ZERO! ! ! ! ! ! !

THIS FIRMLY, IRREVOCABLY AND INELUCTABLY PROVES MY POINT THAT ZERO AND NOTHINGNESS DO NOT, AND CANNOT EXIST, ANYWAY, ANYHOW, ANYWHERE, AT ALL! ! ! !

Don’t you get it now!

One of the reasons true vacuums are proving difficult to create is because of quantum fluctuations.

No? I thought you earlier boasted that they were created even on earth? ? ?

Why did I have to hustle up the facts before you revert with this plea? ? ?

They essentially emerge from nothing into what would be a vacuum.

This is frankly meaningless. You state: “from nothing” (define that) and then you state – “into what would be a vacuum” (thus acceding that it is NOT a vacuum in the first place, remains NOT a vacuum, and as such the particles did not emerge from a vacuum or “nothing”)

That uncertainty ensures that even everything else were eliminated, true vacuums will still prove challenging to create.

That’s a good girl! Thanks for seeing my point and being so gracious as to concede it wholly.

This is at variance with your earlier boasts regarding vacuums!

KAG:
Anyone else see the irony in someone who took two days to post a response hollering that a response hasn't been provided on the same day? What a douche.

O relax right there. I have been quite ill and on medication. Also I was just trying to draw your attention back to address the points I made.

I see you are not finished. So i will hold my peace till you are done.

But by the way - you will have to do quite some more wriggling to escape on the quantum vacuum one - because THAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY ASSERTION THAT "SOMETHING" CANNOT COME OUT OF NOTHING. THAT WAS THE EXAMPLE YOU USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO "FALSIFY" THAT ASSERTION OF MINE.

It therefore means that contrary to what you NOW claim, YOU DID approximate a quantum vacuum to "nothingness" - AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE ROUNDLY FALSE - AS SCIENTIFICALLY SUCH VACUUMS ARE NOT NOTHING!

I await to see with what effusive declamations you will seek to wriggle out of that FALSE allusion of yours.

Let me suggest that it would be simpler, and more honest, to simply admit your example regarding quantum vacuums was badly off. You cannot cavalierly pretend that you "never said a vacuum was nothing" - because if you do so, then you will have to explain EXACTLY why you used it as proof that something (virtual particles) could come out of nothing (a vacuum)? ? ? ?

Occultic practices, witch burning, slaying of twins, inquisitions, emperor worship, unrivalled misogyny and a host of other primitive practices ALSO THRIVED IN THOSE TIMES.

SO WHAT IS THE BASIS OF SELECTING ONE SUCH ABHORRENT PRIMITIVE PRACTICE AND IMAGINING THAT SINCE IT WAS DONE THEN, THAT MAKES IT OK? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Fact is humanity has progressed and alot of barbaric practices have been recognised for what they are.

They very fact of the early stage of development of the reproductive organs in a girl of such age, as well as the obvious incapacity to shoulder the gravity of marriage (which is difficult even for adults) should tell you that in WHATEVER AGE such was practiced, it was, is, and ever will be a misconceived and repulsive practice.