₦airaland Forum

Mr. harakiri - Would you care to suggest to me exactly where the war on corruption in Nigeria should start?

Given that -

1. All Nigerian politicians are corrupt

2. Politicians form the government -

- THE ineluctable reality is that no government will ever have the moral authourity to prosecute ANYONE for corruption.

Might i suggest to you that in a situation such as ours, we will have to rely on the in-fighting and vendetta amongst the politicians to fish out every now and then some corrupt politicians.

When that happens, rather than complain about selective justice (which is better than no justice), we should simply look to see if the accused persons are guilty as charged and thank God that another one has bitten the dust.

Gradually, they will all rat each other out.

Perhaps its because the tenets of Islam are simpler, easier to spiritually absorb, and inherently more rational.

In my eyes, the simple tenets of Islam are -

  1. There is only one GOD

  2. There must be absolute submission to that one God.

  3. Fast and Pray as prescribed in worshipping God.

  4. Give alms to the needy.

Christianity, by contrast, is eminently bizzarre. It goes like this -

  1. There is only one God.

  2. Wait a minute - he is a Trinity.

  3. But he is still only one.

  4. He has an only begotten son.

  5. That son is still God himself.

  6. He sent the son to earth.

  7. The son was born without prior intercourse but miraculously.

  8. The son was murdered on a stake by Roman authourities.

  9. His death on the stake wipes away all the sins of mankind

10. You must believe that the son is God and that the death wipes away your sins.

11. Having done that, to the exclusion of people of all other faiths, you will be admitted to heaven.

Don't get me wrong, I am NIETHER CHRISTIAN NOR MUSLIM, BUT ONE JUST LOOKS MORE RIDICULUOS THAN THE OTHER.

Islam, like other religions, has its foibles, but da Christian dogma takes the award for the strangest spin.

Bastage:
@DeepSight. Your problem is that you are trying to base your argument on mathematics when you do not know what the factors are. You cannot state that 0+1-1=0 when you cannot state with clarity what you are attributing those numbers to.
It's fuzzy mathematics.

It seems to me my last post was too long for you to bother to read. For I very clearly stated what I attribute those numbers to. Here it is again -

Now stop. Take a deep breath. Assimilate:

You stated that the Universe may have emerged from a vacuum. A vaccum. This is nothingness and thus zero. This is what advised the first part of the equation I set up – to wit -

0 (zero).

Now you further stated that the universe emerged.

This means that in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist. Now the universe is a factor or quantity as opposed to a non-factor or non-quantity. We may thus represent it as 1. This is a representative figure as the figure could be anything quantifiable. This advised the development of my equation into –

0 + 1.

This is the point at which the universe exists. It is something, a factor.

Now the point of demise represents a cessation of existence of that factor. Thus in the equation, you remove the factor itself, leading to –

0 + 1 – 1.

The sum of this equation is ineluctably zero.

So you might want to address and specifically rebut that point by point, instead to stating without proof, and without any deduction whatsoever that “the equation falls down spectacularly."

As for your earlier comment regarding Buddhism and nothingness. You seem not to know a lot about Nirvana. In essence, it is unexplainable in the human language - but in layman's terms, "nothingness" or "beyond nothingness" is about the closest that we can come to explaining it. In Nirvana, the human faculties do not exist. The mind does not exist. The Universe does not exist. Nothing exists. Yet those things don't just not exist. Nothing doesn't exist itself. It is the "nothing of nothing". Now, whichever way you look at it and however much proponents of Buddhism may refute it, that is in effect - nothingness.

Ths is the second time I will say this: but you seem not to be hearing me: I state it again - THE ABSENCE OF "SELF" OR "PERSONAL IDENTITY" IS NOT THE SAME THING AS NOTHINGNESS.[/B]

You seem to imagine that if YOU do not exist, then nothing exists. That is a misconception.

EXISTENCE IS.

Let me make this clear for you. Imagine yourself in an unconscious state. You are conscious of nothing: not even of your own existence. You have no sense of self.

[b]Does being absolutely unconscious equate with nothingness? No.

Otherwise a sleeping man or a unconscious man would be said to be non-existent.

I hope you see the point now:

Nirvana IS NOT NOTHINGNESS.

I quote Wikipedia again –

Nirvana (Sanskrit: निर्वाण; Pali: निब्बान; Prakrit: णिव्वाण) is the state of being free from suffering (or dukkha) in sramanic thought. In Pāli, "Nibbāna" means "blowing out" — that is, blowing out the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.[1] The word refers to central concepts in both Buddhism and Jainism.The Buddha described Nirvāṇa as the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states (kilesas). It is also the "end of the world"; there is no identity left, and no boundaries for the mind. The subject is at peace with the world, has compassion for all and gives up obsessions and fixations. This peace is achieved when the existing volitional formations are pacified, and the conditions for the production of new ones are eradicated. In Nirvāṇa the root causes of craving and aversion have been extinguished, so that one is no longer subject to human suffering (Pali: dukkha) or further rebirth in Samsara.

Tell me, how does the foregoing approximate to nothingness? It talks about a perfect peace of mind. Is a mind “nothingness?” It talks about the subject being at peace with the world. Thereby showing that there is a subject, a person. Is a person “nothingness?”

Note most importantly that it starts by describing Nirvana as “a state of being. . .” and then describes the state. That already supposes a “being” in one state or another. That again cannot be nothingness.

By the way, you shoot yourself in the foot with this argument:

It makes the final 0 in your equation incorrect. You have to attribute a positive number to it unless you acknowledge Nirvana as I have described it. And if you attribute a positive number to it, then you have to ascribe a positive number to the end of the equation you use to describe Mazaje's purpose. After all, if there is no nothingness, how can there be any zero?

This is both funny-ha-ha and funny-bizarre.

I repeat: there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist.

The equation is based on the atheist’s presumption that life can end in nothingness: to wit – cease to exist. That is NOT my presumption. I believe that there eternally has been and eternally can only be somethingness.

The equation is set up to show that the atheist’s worldview is summarily empty.

I state it again: there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist. By its very definition it refers to nothing.

I don’t know how you make the gargantuan leap from that into imagining that I must attribute a positive number to zero. That is a contradiction.

Zero is NOTHING: Thus no positive number may be attributed to it

It is thus eminently strange that you state: ”After all, if there is no nothingness, how can there be any zero? –

This is an odd statement -

Because nothingness is zero and zero is nothingness. Your statement presumes zero to be a “something.” That is wrong. It is mathematically, affirmatively and commonsensically NOTHING.

That’s an elementary fact.

Don’t try to confuse readers with such void postulations.

^^^ Merci. I still await your esteemed reversion sir.

Hi KAG –

I am going to be entirely fair. I imagine I always have been. But sometimes I suppose it doesn’t come across. I am going to try hard to let it come across.

Thanks first for your detailed responses.

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Because you did.

That is not true KAG. From the outset I spoke about the entirety of existence and weighed this against a cessation of all existence. Right from Post #17 on this thread I gave Mazaje two premises, the first of which was –

-   If everything that exists ends in nothingness (ceases to exist) – then all existence has collapsed into empty nothingness and accordingly the purpose of all that existed comes to nothingness.

Thus you cannot in any terms assert that my argument was based only on the Individual. I had already stated this before you appeared on the thread, and I would have thought that you would have taken note of such a salient aspect of the discourse.

No, it didn't all emerge from a vacuum, although the universe may have.

This is another severely contradictory statement. I am at odds that you can state that –


1. It didn’t all emerge from a vacuum

2. The universe may have emerged from a vacuum.

Madam, how do you reconcile these statements?

I hope you are able to see the unfortunate and regrettable repetition of irreconcilable arguments that you continuously advance in this discourse. In what intelligible terms can any person apprehend the two statements of yours above – to wit – that “it didn’t all emerge from a vacuum, but the universe may have emerged from a vacuum” ? ? ?

Now this is at the core of the atheistic dilemma: a persuasion to find a meaning and a purpose within a universe already stated to be purposeless.

Looks strange? Your words, not mine.

It grieves me that you do not assimilate this point. I already tried to explain it in detail when I gave Mazaje two initial premises, the second of which was this –


-   If there is a central objective to an endeavour, which is dependent on the realization of smaller objectives – the collapse of the central objective will also render the smaller objectives moot and purposeless.

Another way of saying the foregoing is simply this –

  – That whereat the ultimate purpose is zero or nothingness, all smaller purposes within it perforce amount to zero and nothingness

This withstands the rigors of both mathematics and commonsense.

In terms of mathematics – it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero. Now please note this very very carefully because the entire discourse hinges on it and I will elucidate. For emphasis I first repeat: it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero.

Now stop. Take a deep breath. Assimilate:

You stated that the Universe may have emerged from a vacuum. A vaccum. This is nothingness and thus zero. This is what advised the first part of the equation I set up – to wit -

0 (zero).

Now you further stated that the universe emerged.

This means that in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist. Now the universe is a factor or quantity as opposed to a non-factor or non-quantity. We may thus represent it as 1. This is a representative figure as the figure could be anything quantifiable. This advised the development of my equation into –

0 + 1.

This is the point at which the universe exists. It is something, a factor.

Now the point of demise represents a cessation of existence of that factor. Thus in the equation, you remove the factor itself, leading to –

0 + 1 – 1.

The sum of this equation is ineluctably zero.

Before I go further let me carefully note that this existential series also applies in our discourse to the life of a society or an individual human being. It is all the same.

Now let me say a few pertinent things at this point –

1. What is an equation. It is a sum that expresses a balance of equality between a sum and a result. Thus 1 + 1 = 2. This simply means that the figure “2” is the SAME figure as the sum “1 + 1!”

2. What this inescapably shows, is that the non-existent factor “zero” IS THE SAME FIGURE AS THE SUM – “0 + 1 – 1.”

3. Thus the existential series which I describes above IS THE SAME AS THE FIGURE ZERO AND THUS AMOUNTS TO NOTHINGNESS.

To make this sit well with you, let me address some queasy points.

1. You make heavy weather of present existence – and you insist that so long as we are presently living and experiencing things, then there is not nothingness. Let me ask you: do you countenance the possibility that it is all a mirage? A dream, sort of? A void. A hallucinated reality?

2. I place this to you because of the uniqueness of experience. I am sure you are aware of the philosophical riddle which posits that so long as each man’s experience of reality remains unique to himself, he can never affirm externally the reality or non-reality of his existence.

But the foregoing is slightly tangential: for the real point that I must bring to you is this – namely the central theme that I had stated before to wit –

it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero.

In the context of that which I have set out above, I hope that you see that –

1. The existential series “0 + 1 – 1.” – is exactly the same thing as a ZERO (remember what an equation is).

2. And since it is in itself a zero, then it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST WITHIN IT.

3. ACCORDINGLY, THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE TO PRESENTLY EXIST, GOING BY YOUR FINITE VIEWS – CANNOT EXIST AT ALL. NOTHING CAN EXIST IN A ZERO, BECAUSE A ZERO IS NOTHINGNESS.

Now I need to note very carefully that I have spent the foregoing in analysing the possibility of existence at all – on a metaphysical level – if both ends of the series commence and end with a zero. I have very carefully stated that this would mean that everything is in fact zero and that in reality, nothing therefore exists. Evidentially, this is not correct – and this is my basis for asserting that the finite worldview of the atheist which presupposes that things can end in nothingness – (that a man can “cease” to exist by dying, or that all that exists can cease to exist – or emerged from a vacuum -) is eminently and evidentially wrong, mis-footed and misconceived.

I rather state to you, that - Only a worldview with continuing existence can have any meaningfulness whatsoever.

Finally, I must return briefly to your conundrum of purpose.

Remember that this thread after all is not just about the fact of existence (which is what you have argued) but rather about the purpose of existence.

Summarily, I submit as l already said, as follows –

1. If a central or bigger purpose is actually purposeless, then the smaller purposes within it are actually purposeless as well. This is only logical.

2. You have already stated that the universe is most likely purposeless.

3. This logically removes any iota of purpose that may exist within the universe.

4. We exist within the universe.

5. We therefore cannot have a purpose if the universe is purposeless.

You aren't reading closely or you're being mentally lazy. The two aspects of my argument don't contradict each other. The universe exists without inherent meaning, but humans - beings with awareness - have arisen in the space of the universe. Those human beings can - as they are beings - create meaning from existence because of awareness

We exist within the universe – indeed, we are a product of the universe – that is, in your materialist view. If we have, can develop, or impose meaningfulness, then the universe CANNOT be purposeless, as we are ourselves a product or result of the existence of the universe.

JeSoul:
MyJoe,
I reckon with the strongest of reckonings - that after the dust settles from evaluations, and analyses, and re-evaluations, that I will always believe Jesus came and died for my sins. I believe it as strongly today as I did 10 clicks ago and as I will 100 clicks from now - if I'm still around .

If this is not non-contingent theological definitism, i don't know what is.

Since thoughts are produced by the brain which is a part of the physical body; disembodied sprits have no physical body therefore do not produce thoughts.

But they still make decisions; Spirits make decisions with a part of thier spirits, just like the phiscal body make decision(thinks) with its brian.

This is another case.

You make it appear as though the physical body by itself is a separate being from the spirit and that it has its separate thought mechanism.

I would have thought that the brain is A TOOL used by the spirit to apprehend the world around it.

For this reason my perception is that promptings come from the spirit and the brain is merely a tool for rationalizing existence in the physical world thereon

Spirits have thoughts. Even God has thoughts.

I am at odds that you seek to state that the thoughts that a living man has are altogether a different thing from the thoughts of a disembodied spirit. In this regard let me very carefully say that teh brain, in my view, is a mechanism for processing thoughts in the physical - and not necessarily the origin of the thoughts. The thoughts are intangible perceptions of the spirit.

In this i urge you to consider carefully the nature of dreams. I doubt that the brain could contrive dreams in an unconscious state without any prompting. The very fact that thoughts and pictures float about within the brain is enough evidence of the activity of the spirit - the consciousness of the spirit - the vitality and life with which the spirit dwells within the physical - using the brain as a tool for the apprehension of these things in the physical.

A living man, as a spirit himself, has promptings and spiritual perceptions that are in themselves thoughts of his spirit - even whilst he is on earth. The distinction you seek to draw is far too blurry to be cognised. When the man dies, those promtings, perceptions and ideas still remain. And they are no differnt from that which he had when on earth - because at all times he remained a living spirit.

If disembodied spirits have no thoughts then the entitre concept of spiritual existence will be a nihilistic one. A non-existence.

Given that they must be presumed to have thoughts, it appears a contradiction to state that such thoughts are material things.

Let me put two questions to you. You state that the spirit has different cloaks (the Grail message states this). It supposedly has a fine ethereal cloak - which is still matter.

1. Would you say that that material is of the same substance as the thoughts of a disembodied spirit?

2. Is it possible that there is such a thing as a spiritual brain - given that the physical is only a reflection of the spiritual?

If thoughts are energy and energy cannot exist without mass; then thoughts have mass

Well this is a case.

Does God have energy? Certainly. God is the fountain of all energy.

If God has energy and energy cannot exist without mass, then God has mass - a property of matter.

This reasoning would lead you to classify God as matter.

That is clearly untenable.

KAG:
Except it doesn't suggest that. What, exactly, is the harmonious purpose that your argument suggests? What is this something of which you speak? In any case, yes it is all abstract - further making a mockery of your argument by simple numbers and mathematical notations - but it once again suggests a lack of imagination if one cannot understand living is meaningful while it lasts. An intelligent dinosaur needn't fear extinction while still alive.

I am certain that if you review this thread you will not anywhere see an allusion to fear in any of my posts.

What I have done is simply to seek out PURPOSE for this existence as it stands – to determine its relevance, rationale and result.

That is and remains the philosophers task in all ages.

While you are on about a lack of imagination might I very calmly suggest to you an image that reflects the concept and extent of imagination.

Person 1 – “This life is all that there is.”

Person 2 –  “There is more out there.”

Which person is more imaginative?

Aha.

Verily, I did. I understand that, but if you're going to represent the individual by a number in a mathematical equation, then you can't ignore salient facts like: the individual did not emerge from a vacuum and there are changes left after the death of the individual.

The individual did not emerge from a vacuum you state, cavalierly, might I add.

Because I am surprised that you do not see that this pulls the rug off the foundations of any atheistic worldview.

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Fact is, there was a time when there were NO individuals. No organisms. Hell, no Earth.

So I urge you yet again to view the discourse from a macro stand-point.

Did it all emerge from a vacuum?

Further on you state that the individual leaves changes when he dies. Might I ask you if those changes change the ultimate result that your worldview espouses – namely – that upon final extinction, there would be nothing left but one big, fat, squat ZERO.

Nothingness.

Thus the supposed changes which you have talked about all = 0.

We are back to nothingness. Its inescapable.

In this kindly remember that the discourse is purpose.

A life resulting in nothingness is irretrievably purposeless and that is iron cast logic.

the fact still remains that in addition to the significance imposed on the life of an individual while living, some is also attached - because of what remains after the death of the individual -  to their demise.

This again presumes an eternal society.

Which is NOT the case.

What does everything approximate to upon final extinction?

NOTHING.

Would you want to argue that societies, the Earth, and the Universe are all meaningless because they too will end? Because it isn't so for an individual. They exist. Their existence doesn't need the imposition of purpose by an aware being. While the space individual beings need to survive remains, though, then the being can carry on imposing meaning into their life.

There is no need for me to say anything further save my stubbornness – for with this statement you have ENTIRELY CEDED THE DISCOURSE – GIVEN THAT YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MEANING IS “IMPOSED” BY BEINGS ON REALITY.

Existence is one thing. Meaning and Purpose are quite another.

You specifically state that celestial bodies exist –and that their existence does not require “the imposition of purpose by an aware being.”

This is a wholesale admission that in your view, reality itself has no meaning, and that meaning is only a contrivance of the mind of beings.

Perhaps this thread should now be renamed – “KAG – State the purpose of your life!”

Well, too late for that. You have just stated that there is none, and that you merely “impose” one onto your reality.

This point is FIRMLY HAMMERED HOME BY THE FOLLOWING GAFFE -

First, the universe is most likely purposeless, except when one is imposed upon it by beings.

1. You state that the universe is most likely purposeless

2. You insist that beings living within the universe have purpose and meaning!

This is an irretrievable contradiction the like of which I have never come across in my life before

I think that it is pretty clear now that you have quite some thinking to do regarding the question of purpose. You have set forth a purposeless universe which contains purposeful beings, Lol! How interesting!

KAG:
"That continues in existence." Yes. It makes sense, yes? So you recant this: "It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey."

I cannot comprehend this.

It should be apparent in everything that I have said that whilst you appear to advocate the idea of nothingness post death, I have carefully set out arguments that make it clear that i believe in continued existence post-death. That is not nothingness.

A destination does not imply an end. It is simply what it is - a destination - a place that one is going to. Of course one may continue to other destinations from a destination. This is our everyday experience.

Accordingly "continuing in existence" does not in anyway suggest the absence of a destination, unless it is your peculiar experience that people collapse and die once they have completed any journey.

By the way, I don't think you know what the term "circular argument" means. I don't mean that in a nasty way, just that you seem to be using it to justify handwaving.

What are these if not circular arguments –

Your argument A –

1. Individual lives have meaning (Question: why?)

2. Because there is the context of society and fellow men (Question: What about extinction?)

3. Doesn’t matter because individual lives have meaning.

That, m’lady, is a perfectly round and circular argument that reaches to itself for validation.

Your argument B –

1. A person running or on a joy ride at a fair has no destination (Question: Aren’t there purposes for that?)

2. The purpose is that he is enjoying himself (Question: Does such enjoyment not have effects that outlast the moment?)

3. It does not matter because he is enjoying himself.

There again. The circle is clearly your favourite shape.

Look, if southern nigeria had been conquered by an Islamic Power and not a christian power, the FACT is that 95% of today's southern christians would be muslims.

That is the unavoidable TRUTH.

Too easy. Each person too will speak for himself and we still end up with almost everybody clinging to the religion of their birth and childhood.

This proves conclusively that the biggest and most important element in people's choice of religion is simply the religion they were born into.

This is iron cast.

O dear, these people want to block the road and cause traffic again ? ? ?

Quote from Jesoul -

One important assertion I want to strongly clamp down on is that "I believe because I was raised to" - indoctrination - nothing could be further from the truth.

Really? Does this explain why 95% of people remain in the religion of their births?

Did they all have Damascus Experiences to affirm their faith?

Come on.

KAG:
There is a truism that has almost become cliche that applies here: "It is not everyone that is wandering that is lost". There's a sport I enjoy that involves simply running round an athletics track. You're not really going anywhere, just round and round, but for many experiencing the run is joy enough to justify what your position denies.

If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders.

Listen, there is no doubt that the moment can be enjoyed. But this again is a circular argument for the runner and the fun seekers both derive benefits, physical fitness, a memory, an after-glow - all of which last beyond the moment and contribute to a greater sense of being that continues in existence.

Nobody would undertake any such thing if all its effects, and the memory of it became lost and forgotten once done.

Indeed life would suddenly approximate to a vicious cycle of zero if that was the case.

KAG:
What I am getting from your position is that you are having trouble understanding how life can have maning if it has to end at some point. That, in my opinion, suggests a lack of imagination if nothing else.

I would have thought that it suggests a recognition of more abstract, harmonious purposes that approximate to a something as opposed to a nothing.

Life is meaningful while it is being lived. The effects an individual has not only on her or his fellow humans but also on their environment is of great significance, even if it isn't noticed or fully realised.

I verily suspect that you have not been reading my posts. Perhaps they are not worth reading?

When I started this thread I spoke first on the macro level before reducing the question to the micro level of the life of a single individual.

Thus when you talk about “fellow humans” and “society” you have not grasped what I earlier spoke about – to wit – the inevitable finite nature of matter as a whole – which implies that life, the world, humanity, matter, indeed the whole universe as we know it – must perforce – within the finite worldview that you espouse – must perforce terminate – in the same way as the individual has a life-span that comes to an end.

Thus the argument operates first at the macro-level – to with what can be said to be the purpose of ALL EXISTENCE – the earth, the world, humanity, the universe – if it all ends in nothingness

I absolutely assert to you that both mathematically and affirmatively this = 0.

Which accordingly renders the RESULT of all that existed to be ZERO, and thus nothingness.

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding the context of the word “purpose.”

In simple existential terms, a purpose in context refers to a result – namely that which something is heading towards. If the universe is heading towards a party, that party is its objective, its destination, and thus its macro-purpose – even if we remain unaware of the fact.

In similar terms, if the universe is heading towards nothingness, then that nothingness is unavoidably the result – the outcome - of all that exists and thus again inescapably, the macro-purpose would equate with NOTHINGNESS.

On a final note for this point let me ask you why you assume that “society” and “fellow men” are so important? In the unspeakable vastness of the known universe alone, you are aware that the earth amounts to less than a speck of dust. If it were to explode and cease to exist tomorrow, the universe would not notice even a slight blip. Given this why do you suppose that the lives being lived here are of any relevance, meaning, or purpose to anything.

If those lives end in nothingness, then certainly everything that they supposedly meant, = 0.

That is iron cast.

More, like alluded earlier, knowing that one doesn't have an eternity to experience living is a useful way of focusing ones energies on life.

And what would the point of such focus be, given that it all = 0?

Of course simple mathematics is a poor indication of such philosophical concepts that appear in this thread,

When it is convenient for the scientific materialist, mathematics suddenly becomes a “poor indicator?” Please.

I suppose you have no apprehension of the vast and deep beauty of mathematics and how it is in fact a deep and self-existent rhythm reflective of the totality of finite and infinite existence.

but if we were to use mathematics to represent life, then the individual will be a number within a set. That is, rather than the perhaps silly notion that you've indicated (0 + 1), it's more:

I hope you see already that once we talk at the macro-level, your allusion to sets collapses entirely.

Indeed you are pursuing a helplessly circular argument. For when the futility of an individual life that ends in zero is pointed out to you, you run to seek refuge in sets and groups. Now it has been shown to you that sets and groups are also finite and thus in your worldview will all end in the zero factor, where are you going to run to now?

Back to the individual? Come on.

{New life}Society - new life = Society + effect "new life" had on society.

Let me complete the equation for you, for your equation is incomplete. It presumes an eternal society, which is not your worldview.

Your equation should properly read –

Zero -{New life}Society - new life = Society + effect "new life" had on society - eventual extinction = Zero. . .

Given that all things finite have a terminal point.

Thus it still ends in zero however long you may stretch it.

And this conclusively summarizes the sum of your “purposes” as ZERO.

When you are tired of going round the same circle, throw the ball back at me and ask what view I have that evades the Zero factor. I would give it to you.

Sir: You seem to be running from shadows, and riddling yourself with incurable contradictions.

You stated that a destination is not relevant to a journey. . . in an attempt to avoid the obvious.

Having been shown how that does not add up you now perform a somersault and state that there is no journey altogether. . .

This is another faux pas, because so long as your life posesses a progressive tangent, which it does (birth, growth. . . . . death) and is recognised within TIME, then it is a progression and accordingly is definitely analogous to a journey.

We can therefore surmise and agree that you are on a progression that ends in nothingness.

So what will you state now?

I repeat: a sum that ends in zero is exactly equal to nothingness. . .

And in your determination to avoid the obvious you have chosen a worldview which equates to zero and thus absolute nothingness. . .

mazaje:
Destination is of NO relevance to a journey. . .

It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey.

Good grief. Come one. How far will you go to prop up your worldview ? ? ?

Maybe you forgot that this thread is about PURPOSE.

And as far as that goes the incontestible PURPOSE of a finite journey is to reach a given destination.

When you jump aboard a plane to go to Finland, your PURPOSE is not simply to enjoy the ride.

YOUR INDISPUTABLE PURPOSE IS TO GET TO HELSINKI AND THAT'S A FACT.

Nobody undertakes ANY JOURNEY PURPOSELESSLY.

UNTIL YOU REBUTT THIS EQUATION -

0 + 1 - 1 = 0

You must perforce accede that the sum of your worldview amounts to zero; and thus ineluctible nothingness.

That is iron cast.

Joagbaje:
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

If Paul was aware of this then why did he issue his numerous Apartheid injunctions against womanhood ? ? ?

Paul had to put a check on that by telling them to be silent and ask their husbands questions at home.

Speculation. Which doesn’t make sense at all events. What if the husband does not have the anointing or understanding?

1 Cor. 14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Look at the above. It states very clearly “IT IS A SHAME FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN CHURCH.”

So do not tell lies, Mr. Agbaje. The scripture is clear.

It’s absolutely disgraceful. Are the women lesser creatures? Do they lack brains? Are they bound slaves? What egoistic, chauvinistic, misogynistic, barbaric and primitive mentality would lead any sane person to declare that a woman speaking up in a gathering “is shameful ? ? ? ?”

Please do not defend the indefensible.

They were not forbidden to speak.

This is an outright LIE, and I am surprised that you would peddle such falsehood. The quote from Corinthians above is explicit: it forbids them from speaking in Church.

Acts 18:26
And he (Apollos) began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

1. That was not church.

2. At all events it proves my point that women could have the anointing. So why then would the barbaric Paul command them not to speak in church ? ? ? ?

mazaje:
I just don't get this fallacious and ridiculous arguments deepsight is proposing. . . .Why does life have to be eternal for it to be meaningful when the eternal concept is only a hypothesis that has no evidence to back it up at all. . . .

This thread is not about proof of eternity. It is simply a request to understand the Purpose of the life of a man called Mazaje.

People are here and as such they need to make their lives meaningful. . . . .

1. WHY?

2. By what methods? A hired assassin who makes millions of dollars murdering politicians and retires to luxury in the Bahamas with his beloved wife has also made his life meaningful. This is incontestable.

3. Further on (2) above, the live of the assassin, his wife, his victims, and his instigators will ALL end in NOTHINGNESS – and accordingly it is inconceivable that what he has done –

a. Has any relevance whatsoever to anything

b. Is wrong or right in any sense.

The life after death does NOT give life more meaning There is no evidence to show that it does. . .

Simple reasoning shows that it does. By the simple principle of a destination’s relevance to a journey.

Where the destination is NOTHINGNESS (as you have confirmed is your view) then INELUCTABLY, the journey results in nothingness, and is as such absolutely meaningless[/b]

This is cast in iron, and is mathematically correct as well.

Again I assert that this equation –

0 + 1 – 1 = 0

SUMMARILY proves that a life with nothingness at both ends amounts mathematically and affirmatively to zero, and is as such irredeemably meaningless.

KAG:
So nothing, then. This gross celebration of a lack of self and all its components - is this Nirvana also not a fate worse than death? - is the true face of nihilism.

It's understandable to fear death; it's not so understandable to forget that an end can focus meaning into a life.

I DEMAND of you that you explain what meaning life may have: if all life ends with the zero factor: to wit: nothingness.

For I positively assert that 0 + 1 - 1 = 0 and that this conclusively proves that a life with nothingness at both ends is conclusively purposeless, empty and meaningless, given that it refers summarily to NOTHING.

Thank you broda.

But you have not answered my questions?

^^^ I therefore assume that in your view it is impossible for something to be the manifestation of another thing and not at the same time be that thing.

YES! I am MAD[/b]LY in love with [b]MAD Max. I hope she doesn't turn out to be a man _{like Inesqor.}

Ya gat a great mind, madam.

^^^ Given even your own words you acknowledge that Nirvana is NOT a state of nothingness.

You seem to equate the dissipation of "self" with nothingness. That is incorrect. There is more to existence than "self" as we know it.

Nothingness by its very definition does NOT EXIST AT ALL. IT IS NOTHINGNESS - AND ACCORDINGLY NON-EXISTENT.

babaearly:
In meditation u are required to visualize whichis a form of controlled thoughts and taught by mystics and some pastors

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS -

Is a crystalized thought of the formless idea - which is divinity.

YOUR THOUGHTS - may aslo crystalize.

justcool:
Thoughts are matter, only that they are not physical matter(Coarsest Gross matter) Thoughts are fine gross matter, and thus finer and more refined than physical matter; this is why you cant see them with your physical eyes, but you can with your inner(astral and etherial) eyes.

I have a hard time accepting that thoughts are matter. Not even ethereal matter.

Can you define matter. Coarse, fine and ethereal.

What common denominator ranks them all as matter. If we can define that, perhaps we can get an understanding.

I, for my part, (with grossly deficient knowledge) am disinclined to view a thought as any form of matter.

Do disembodied spirits have thoughts? What material are such thoughts?

Romeo4real:
What I'm alluding to here is that there are many things beyond our understanding

Correct.

that transcends natural laws

Nothing traanscends natural laws.

as we know them today.

Correct.

What i experienced definitely transcends Newtons Laws of Motion.

Correct.

Quite clearly, there exist abilities which allow for the alteration and manipulation of natural laws.

Manipulation, yes, alteration, no.

These abilities cannot be "natural",

Thay are perfectly natural.

as they conflict with existing expressly defined laws.

We simply dont know all the laws. Or the manifestations of those laws that we do know.

You asked for it, here it is -

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak but must remain in submission, as the Law says. If they want to enquire of something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This is a disgraceful verse.

Krayola:
The candle lighting up darkness. Nobody has to need the light for the candle to live it's life.

Do candles light themselves?

We are social beings, so that one person dies off does not necessarily mean his life was meaningless. His/her impact on the lives of others can be a form of purpose or meaning or whatever. Remove man from the society and what u have is not man anymore IMO. Too much focus on the individual distorts reality. Man is nothing alone. From the moment u are born your survival depends on others. Why can't the purpose or meaning of your life be a function of your relationship with society. Why conjure up souls, and spirits, Gods and realms. Death scares the hell out of y'all and u guys need all these magical stuff to help u get thru. Kinda funny.

You have not read my earlier posts, have you?

You talk about societies. When we are all gone, the equation still results in zero.

There was no who in the original example, if there was, my response would have been different.

Do candles light themselves?

And your point is? That God NEEDS us for sumn? the omnipotent one?

That we are an expression of something does not mean that that thing needs us. Your art may be an expression of you. This does not mean that you need it. Rather it finds its purpose in that which you have done it for.

Man needs mankind.

You know very well that this is circular reasoning.

Bastage:
What do you mean I haven't said anything?

Exactly that.

You're trying to prove that life is meaningless if it begins with nothing and ends with nothing by using mathematics.
You simply can't do that.

I can.

Here is the irrefutable equation -

0 + 1 - 1 = 0

Because you start with zero, add a factor (1) - representing life and then you minus that factor (at death, it ceases to exist) and thus end up with zero.

The summary of this equation (which is life as Mazaje has described it,) is Zero, and thus nothingness.

Like I said - meaning is a concept. A concept can be created from nothingness.

I POSITIVELY CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME JUST ONE CONCEPT THAT AROSE FROM NOTHINGNESS.

Mutual respect is a better word.