₦airaland Forum

Quote from viaro -

The atheist cannot claim that he is not responsible to adduce 'proof' for his negative claim - because that would be something other than metaphysics. This was why I earlier talked about propositional logic.

No no no, son. Let's go back to Russell's Tea Pot -

I said this on another thread early in my arrival on NL -

Prizm - Don't wait up for it - while we bother our heads prsenting defensible cases for the positive existence of God, no atheist has ever, or will ever present a case for his positive non-existence.

This is because they know full well his non-existence can never be proven.

Nevertheless, they are somewhat justified in taking the position that it's not their task to advance proof, but ours.

In the words of the great Betrand Russell:


“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

I am sure you see from the above the lucid reason why it might not be apt to ask an atheist for reasons or proof.

We are the ones asserting the existence of a quantity that cannot be seen, and so the burden of proof, if any, falls with us.

Prizm disagreed with me  -

At any rate, it is not surprising that he likened the idea of a God to some teapot orbiting the sun. He imagines that a belief in God is similar to a belief that there could be some unknown teapot floating in orbit between Earth and Mars. Should we be agnostic about the existence of this teapot then? The answer is NO. The reason why we do not believe that Russell’s Celestial teapot exists is because we know that it wasn’t put there by either American or Russian astronauts!  Besides, matter in the vast expanse of this universe’s space-time does not spontaneously self-organize into teapot shapes – not to talk of delicate ceramic teapots or other remorseless pieces of china!

And i responded with -

However you lead me to believe that the core moral of the Russell quote was lost on you, and perhaps it is apt to have some perspective on the principle of burden of proof. In this perhaps i am somewhat tainted by my legal background as the term "burden of proof" has a distinct legal connotation.

In a sentence, the principle states - "He who asserts must prove".

However it is worth noting that this refers to a positive assertion as opposed to a negative assertion. In other words if i were to make the positive statement: "Michael Jackson is standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest" - the burden of proving that would rest on me, and not on the person who makes the negative assertion - "Michael Jackson is not standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest."

It is for this reason that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who are making the positive statement - "He did it" and not with the defence who are making the negative statement - "He did not do it."

This is why i was somewhat bemused when you stated: "Besides, matter in the vast expanse of this universe’s space-time does not spontaneously self-organize into teapot shapes – not to talk of delicate ceramic teapots or other remorseless pieces of china" -

Because Mr. Russell's point has got nothing to do with that. His analogy simply is directed at showing up the flaw in insisting that the non-existence of something that has not been observed, or cannot be observed, must be proved by the skeptic. A grasp of the "absence of evidence" theorem will suggest that this is an absolute impossibility: and also an incongruity -  the atheists will never attempt to prove the non-existence of God, as such can never be done, nor does it make sense to ask them to come up with the evidence for a negative assertion.

It's quite simply a contradiction in terms.

^^^ Viaro has a great head on his shoulders, and has brought much to the Religion Section in terms of Quality.

I admire his thoroughness.

By way of criticism, i will say that he is excessively stubborn: will not see a glaring or simple point once it is in contra-distiinction to his jewish-inspired dogma, can be rabidly bitter and ranks amongst the most terribly abusive and insultive persons on Nairaland.

Nonetheless he is a valuable asset to the Forum and has enriched the quality of discourse greatly.

_{Not to mention his monstrous vocabulary.}

viaro:
^^ Your world. Enjoy.

Of course i fully expect that you should have nothing to say when your hyposcrisy is exposed. . .

Getting all antsy over a non-exclusive claim by the WoF to association with divinity - which is CLEARLY borne out by your own scripture of jewish myths and legends. . .

Yet failing to see how COMICAL it is that YOU, the accuser, are guilty of worshipping a jewish man and shamelessly calling him, a proven mere mortal, ALMIGHTY GOD. . .

I am yet to think of a heretical delusion more sinister than that.

Abeg o Tpia . . . i jus dey play o. . .

No quote me o. . .

tpiah:
someone needs a reason to be celibate? and those are the only two reasons you can think of?

YES THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT HOLD WATER.

you do know black males are widely regarded as little more than studs and as the poster boys for sexual immorality, right?

What is the meaning of sexual immorality? Can you define it?

YOU ARE RASCIST; otherwise you would not brand one race as se.xual deviants without evidence. . . ever heard of swedish ero.tica? I suppose it was created by "black males!"

ever wondered why muttalab was given an explosive to carry in his underwear? near his privates

Perhaps to cool down his libido?

good for you.

i prefer them cooked and in pepper soup

That is CANNIBALISTIC because human beings are goats

tpiah:
you dont have to be religious to be celibate

What other reason is there to be celibate? Impotence? Unattractiveness?

neither is it by force to sleep with every goat or human in the name of natural instinct.

How did you know i like goats? You should really try them: They have se.xy hoofs and walk like models. . .

goldtito:
OK. IM SORRY I DONT KNOW U HAV RULES ON SPACE HERE.

I WILL POST THE POTIC VERY SOON.

I presume you meant "Topic" ? ? ?

You see what i mean? Your time will be better served improving your writing skills.

N'bad, my brother. . .

In truth the argument about Theism and Diesm is neither here nor there. . .

I should get back to discussing the essentials of this very simple worldview. . .

Be right back. . .

YOU ARE A FRAUD.

What makes you think anybody is interested in this?

Spend more time refining your writing skills before you come back here.

Where have you been googler?

Lorddozzy:
are you calling the bible a myth?

^^^ Not entirely. Some parts of it are proven historical.

But stories about gardens and serpents and forbidden fruits are not to be taken as history.

I have often said on this forum that it must a a spiritual account which did not transpire upon this earth.

But on further reflection ask yourself if at all that myth is of any relevance to your life today? ? ? ? ?

Wwhy do you subscribe to the myths, fantasies and legends of a foreign tribe?

Forget about it. It is a myth no better than the Yoruba myth that someone came down from the sky with a cockerel and a bag of sand to create teh world

Nimshi:
Are you interested in what God said about this, or are you going to discuss Paulian perspectives?

Yahweh, the Hebrew local God, was clear wbaout where his interests lay:

Women were property; adultery was a violation of another man's property, with the additional injury of the possibility of obscuring the family line (this is related also to property, since, except for the Levites, inheritance was along family lines).

Things're clearer when we examine the punishment for a man who has intercourse with a consenting virgin. The Law in this case removes all cloaks and confirms the position of women as property. And, of course, this was a society where slavery was acceptable.

Now, how is any of this of any use today? why should God be hurt by what two consenting adults do behind closed doors? And, how could anyone prove that disobeying God on this has lasting negative consequences? The most prosperous societies today have low marriage rates, lots of sexual activity, and live happier lives than the inhabitants of poor Africa where most proclaim to be religious.

.

Perfectly put. And the delusional Christian and Islamic majority will go about denying themselves natural urges simply on account of the writings of ancient semitic nomads. . .

I laugh

This is so laughable. "Ye are gods. . ." said Jesus. . .

Joh:17:22: And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one

Did the WoF write these scriptures or are they not a part of your Jewish book of fantasies and myths? ? ?

These delusional Christians will deny their brethren a simple claim to a non-exclusive association with divinity. . . yet they hypocritically and shamelessly declare a dead Jewish Rabbi to be almighty God, and are so far gone in their psycotic heresy that they bow down and worship the jewish rabbi calling him GOD. . .

Then they comically come here to denounce others for claiming Godship. . .

What a laugh

viaro:
DeepSight, howdy?

Am fine thank you, but speedily on to business. NOW -

1. The WOF movement is what obtains within Christendom and rather not in Deism. As such, a deist is far less qualified to call me up on these matters since Deism denies the essential points of Christianity - that there is only one Christ, who is the Divine Son of God, confessed as Lord, Master and Saviour for the salvation of man (John 13:13 and Romans 10:9-10).

Nonsense. There are and remain CHRISTIAN sects that do not accept Jesus as God. Jehovah’s witnesses are one such. Perhaps you will conclude the Jehovah’s witnesses are not a Christian group. Perhaps they are a Muslim group.

My challenge to you was simple: it was not about salvation and all the other yada-yada-yada of Christian dogma – but about your claim concerning the deity of Christ AND HOW you can be so recklessly hypocritical as to denounce others for claiming Deity when you have yourself conferred it on a foreigner – a Jewish Man just like yourself.

Are you perhaps suffering from feelings of racial inferiority to Jews or Whites – otherwise how could you accept their claim that one of their own is GOD – and even begin to worship that man – yet hypocritically slam the equal claims of your African brethren to a non-exclusive divine association? ? ?

These are not confessions any deist makes, since Deism denies faith, revelation, miracles and the supernatural in its worldview.

Deism denies the supernatural? And you call every-one else illiterate?

What is God, if not supernatural? Did you examine Krayola’s Chart on Deist beliefs? Have you ever read anything on Deism? Joker.

2. Others may so claim to be gods and lords, and the Bible does not deny that such claims are to be found outside Christianity. . .

Are you ok today Viaro? What the hell did your carpenter GOD mean when he asserted – “Ye yourselves are gods. . . .?”

Thus, anyone claiming to be the same as 'God' and 'Christ' under the umbrella of Christianity is a deceiver, a liar and an antichrist (Matt. 24:4-5 and 1 John 2:22).

.

5. As long as WOF folks come under the unbrella of Christianity and claiming themselves to be both 'Christ' and 'God' as in the Bible, I stand as a non-WOF believer who will expose such duplicity.

Ehen? So I suppose you can explain this scripture to me -

John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Does it not infer what the WoF have been asserting ? ? ?

Joker.

Hence, when someone comes along claiming to be "Christ" and the same as 'God' in the Bible, I could ask such a person to show me where any Biblical prophecies were written concerning him/her -

I am sure you value the above declaration by your carpenter God himself, no?

It is either you keep your deistic fundamentalism to yourself and let Christians be who they are, or you constantly be at the receiving end of my baton.

Bring it on!

Joker.

Kray. . .hit me ur tune as well? xeniboer@gmail.com

Viaro -

This is an excellent case.

You damn the WoF folk for claiming divinity or deity.

You naturally consider it bizzare and even heretical.

So why do you attempt to deny me my right to consider your own claim that a jewish rabbi is Almighty God as equally bizzarre?

You get mad when i condemn such ideas: but you are now entitled to condemn the same claims coming from others? ? ?

How is it that you and only you are entitled to condemn people for elevating humans to Godship? ? ?

Perhaps you can now see how irritating such claims are? ? ?

You live in a glass house and as such you have no right to throw stones: your claims that a jewish rabbi is GOD are far more comical that the WOF's alleged claims.

This this day-light hypocrisy.

I also urge you to consider the Five Arguments put forward for the existence of God by Thomas Aquinas -

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

The Argument of the First Cause
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

The Argument from Contingency
"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

The Argument from Degree
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."


The Teleological Argument
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

thehomer:
If you wish to continue with that analogy in mathematics, loads of other abstract figures can give you zero or even greater than zero.

e.g (-1) x (-1) = 1. What does this mean? Two abstract items squared give you a real item?

Why did you choose addition and not division?

You then go on to invoke a first cause which is not helpful since your analogy is not quite helpful. What I request is actual evidence.
Like you've said to viaro the burden of proof rests more with the theist. So give the evidence of this first cause you've invoked.

-1 is not a quantity. In real terms is it not a detraction from zero - which signifies nothingness? Can you show me -1 apples on a table? But i can show you a table with zero apples. Thus in real terms it is misleading to set up an  analogy with -1 as a quantity: it is not a quantity. The only reason I set up a zero equation was so that we see what nothingness (zero) will always result in nothingness (zero).

It is not relevant whether i used addittion, subtraction or division. Any operation performed on Zeros only will end with a zero; because zero is nothingness and you cannot derive something out of nothing.

This is one of the principles of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

In summary, the cosmological argument proves the existence of God based on these premises -

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.The Universe began to exist.

3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

It may also be stated thus -

1.Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2.Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

3.A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4.Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I do not assert the foregoing to be complete: the cosmological argument has raged for centuries and there are all sorts of perspectives including the philosophical and the scientific - but I believe that the premises are food for thought in addressing the question of God's existence.

viaro:
1. I did not assert "God exists" as the 'core claim' of theism - it is one of the claims of theism; but it is not the core of theistic claims that defines its place among worldviews in the grand scheme of things.

It is quite amazing the extent to which you will go to defend a statement that at best can be considered incongruous and at worst something else entirely!

Now you are SO BOLD as to confidently assert in public that the claim that God exists is not the core claim of the theist.

Amazing.

Laughable in the extreme, son.

Did you miss the meaning of the word “Theist?”

Greek: Theos – meaning “God”

That is thus unquestionably the core and basis of what it means to be “Theist.”

Viaro, is it so hard to admit that you have got it wrong? You are only human you know.

Oxford’s Advanced Learners Dictionary : “Theism - /Өi:izem/ nonun: belief in the existence of God or gods.

Perhaps if you were on the Oxford Team compiling that dictionary you would have insisted that what should be there as the definition of Theism is: “Theism - /Өi:izem/ nonun: the worldview that places God as the basis of Ethics”

What a laugh.

YOU KNOW that that is definitely wrong in grammatical, theological and scholarly terms. You cannot insist any further that the existence of God is not the core claim of Theism – otherwise in the quote I dusted out from the other thread why did YOU not define Theism in terms of what YOU now claim its core claim is – why did you not define it as “the worldview that places God as the basis of Ethics” ? ? ? ? ?

Instead you dovetailed with Oxford in stating the obvious: namely that the claim of the Theist is that God exists.

The truth is that if we are to begin to use Ethics as the core basis of theism: then theism will not exist AT ALL: because every theist has his own different perception of Ethics in terms of God!

Indeed we will shortly arrive at the time when you will on this very ground claim that a Muslim is not a theist: given that he has a different idea of God than you do; and a different idea of Ethics!

Answer me this:

What makes a Muslim a theist? –

1. The fact that he believes in God the Creator OR –

2. The fact that his ethics are based on God?

It is impossible for you to claim No 2- because the ethics of the Muslim are different to yours – just as the ethics of each person and group differ – based on their ideas of God.

At all events all this explanation is sorely unnecessary: only YOU would so bizarre as to require it: for the very etymology of the word “Theism” is more than sufficient to prove that the core of Theism is belief in the existence of God or gods.

I can scarcely believe that I am entertaining this at all. Especially this from a person who calls ME illiterate at the drop of a hat! I am sorely tempted to describe you; but I will keep to my commitment not to descend to the puerile insults that you fling my way everyday.

P.S: I notice you have shied away from repeating that Deism is “not even a shadow” of Theism. Embarrassed? Or do you stick to that? Say it again? Did you see the chart? EIGHT SIMILARITIES OUT OF ELEVEN.

And in the differences we can only pick out things like perceptions about evil and the end-time!

Do you realize that even amongst Christian denominations such, and even greater differences of views exist? ? ? Would you therefore conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses for instance are not Theists? ? ?

You talk about the Diest’s ethics being based on nature. How many times did Jesus himself use parables and analogies from nature to expound ethics? Does this perhaps mean that Jesus was not a Theist? ? ?

Joker.

Hello M_Nwankwo –

It’s been quite a while. I hope you are doing well and your wife also.

I am at odds with the assertion that “contrary volitions” develop “at great distances” from God.

1. What is the meaning of the omnipresence of God? Although I do not imagine that omnipresence means that God resides in my backyard, I feel definite that the minimum that can be ascribed to an infinite and boundless element such as God is said to be: is that its radiations, magnetism and compound nature must perforce be said to permeate ALL existence in absolute terms. Anything less would make it less than God – less than infinite, and less than an absolute and compound element which it is said to be.



2. If the forgoing holds true, then the constant refrain within the Grail message about the development of “contrary volitions” at great distances from God must necessarily either be wrong; or at the minimum represent a limitation of the compound, infinite and omnipresent nature of God.

This is my first concern.

My second concern has to do with the following logical inconsistency –

1. Only God and goodness/ harmony existed and nothing else: all was Light, Good and Harmony

2. This harmony is omnipresent (permeates all existence)

3. Yet disharmony and elements that contradict the Light have come into existence notwithstanding that the all-pervasive Light is said to be both omnipresent and omnipotent

How then did the darkness or contrary volitions come to exist?

Is it not true as you have asserted that EVERYTHING that exists derives its existence from God?

If this is the case then certainly and ineluctably, the Darkness and so-called contrary volitions derive their existence from God. In this the so called “principles or possibility of Darkness” described by Inesqor can be no exception – for as you have stated: even “non-existence” derives from God.

To suggest the contrary would be to suggest that the God is NOT all that there is to existence: that there are elements other than God which caused these contrary elements to arise.

It seems to me more reasoned to suggest that both Light and Darkness are the necessary and non-contingent aspects of ONE reality as derived from the principle of Duality.

. . . axioms of meta-ethical understanding of the divine e.g. Deep Sight's claims that Satan existed simultaneously with God from scratch

Inesqor:

Please just to clarify: I am not a religious person and as such i do not believe in such things as Satan.

I only engaged the discussion with a view to probing your assertions because I believe in; and have my own view of transcendental reality as epitomized by the Light, Darkness and associated principles.

If you read my posts you will see that i was mostly telling you what the implications of your assertions would be.

@ thehomer -

What is the sum of 0 + 0?

Let me help you: the answer is Zero. Thus 0+ 0 = 0.

This basically proves, and mathematically so, that no amalgamation of nothings (zeros) will ever conjure a something.

If we agree that the world as we know it is a "something" then we must perforce agree that something caused it to be.

Thus that on the left side of the zero equation above, there must exist a permanent quantity - and not a "nothing" (zero).

That permanent quantity is what is referred to as God.

Can you deal with that? ? ?

@ Viaro - Russell's Teapot is not a strawman. The Burden of proof rests with the Theist.

viaro:
Notice that in that particular reply which you quoted, I did not claim that theism is a worldview with a CORE claim that God exists.

Viaro - would you like to tell me what the core claim of Theism is?

Or even what the very word - "Theism" signifies?

Please!

I fetched this quote from another thread - Viaro in another thread is happy to admit what the core claim of Theism is!

viaro:
@thehomer,

I already told you that it is not the peripherals that we're looking at, but the worldview itself. Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God. Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

Now this hammers home my point in absolute terms.

You have been exposed, Viaro for you explicitly stated:Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

So why have you been trying to draw lines between Deism and Theism? What is the core claim of Deism if not that God exists?

After this can you continue to claim that Deism "is not even a shadow" of Theism? ? ?

Now this quote has made it clear who has been arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I wonder how you get away with this and nuclearboy will crucify me for lesser crimes?

I think there is a fallacy embedded here, Deep Sight. Are you trying to say that everything which exists "now" always used to exist? This single << - - ->> argument of yours would fault the cause of creation, human experience and development. I believe << - - ->> can only be applied to the initial uncaused cause, i.e. God. And not to the timeless existence of bipolar signifiers.

Finally! Can you not see? ? ?

We are talking about THE LIGHT - which is God - yes! ! ! Not about material finite things existing now!

So if you accept that << - - ->> applies to God - (the Light) -

Then you have accepted all the self existence of negativity and positivity i talked about within trancendence!

See it now? ? ? ! ! !

Krayola:
;d

I must point out two things regarding the chart posted by Krayola.

1 - I do not know FROM WHERE the authours got the details of Deist belief posted there because beyond the existence of God and the fact that he created all things and such can be observed within nature - all the rest written there are assumptions because each deist may have different views on such. This is the exact same way that all the many different theists in the world have different views on all those issues posted in the chart. It is FALSE to suggest as the chart does that all theists or all deists believe the same things.

2 - At all events looking at the 11 beliefs set out, between the Deist and Theist Columns EIGHT are SIMILAR whilst ONLY THREE are materially different. And of course the eight simlar includes the core belief in God.

So how Viaro could have looked at that chart so superficially and reached the conclusion that it supports his comical view that "there is not even a shadow" of similarity between Theism and Deism is beyond me.

Inesqor -

With reference to Pastor's comments, and looking back at  your statement that - Evil exists only with reference to Good -

What does "Good" exist with reference to?

What makes "Good" good?

In reference to Derrida's Differance - can we define good simply by using the word "goodness?" We cannot.

In reference to Pastor's comment, a perfect cyclical loop would be to define Good in terms of Evil and vice versa.

Do you realize that such a perfect loop is the only basis for the definition of and indeed the existence of the transcendental "goodness" that you insist was the initiator?

Does it dawn on you that such a timeless and eternal perfect loop emphasizes that which i have tried to put across: namely that good cannot exist independent of evil, any more than "positive" can be said to exist without the simultaenous and parrallel existence of "negative."

Does this help you see that both light and darkness are self-existent?

Viaro/ Inesqor/ Krayola –

I am not impressed by the view you set up regarding a “resemblance” between Diesm and Theism – and you both mischievously proceed to claim that “any resemblance” seems enough for me to hang on to.

This is eminently false and a compound misrepresentation of reality the like of which I have never seen in my life before.

The falsity emerges with your disingenuous attempt to reduce the relationship between the deistic and theistic worldviews to a mere “resemblance” and then “any resemblance. . . ”

This cannot hold: for the simple reason that we do not speak of “any resemblance” but rather of THE CORE resemblance – nay; the core spirit – the founding thought of each of these worldviews.

And as far as that goes, the founding or initial thought; the basis of ALL theism, is that there exists a supreme being who created all things – GOD or that there exist “gods.”

I am still profoundly dumbstruck that ANYBODY, much less your eminent selves, could muster a way to divorce this from Deism – which shares THE SAME founding thought – or basic plank – to wit: that there exists a supreme being who created all things – GOD.

Do I have to repeat for the umpteenth time the fact that both words are in reality THE SAME WORD – as sourced from different languages ? ? ? ?


Language: Greek Latin


Word: Theos (θεός) Deus



English Translation: god god


It thus emerges that the very words “Theist” and “Deist” are virtually the SAME WORD in different languages. And I am astonished that your excellencies could be so contrary as to dare suggest that the one has nothing to do with the other. Especially Viaro, who comically states that Deism does not have “even a shadow” of “Theism.” This is a laughable statement which Viaro should retract if he is an honest person.

Any toddler can see that that is an eminent falsehood.

Deism is thus simply representative of the core idea of theism: namely that there exists God and that God created all that exists.

You can only deny the above rationally if you contend that:

1. The belief in God who created all things is not the core and foundation of theism AND ALSO CONTEND THAT

2. The belief in God who created all things is not the core and foundation of Deism – indeed virtually the only belief of the Deist!

And I positively challenge any of you to dare make either statement above.

The grim truth thus emerges that in accord with mankind’s primitive instincts towards divisiveness, (the “us” vs “them” mentality), you have all comically attempted to distance Theism from Deism simply on account of your fundamentalism, which compels you to wish to dissociate yourselves from others who do not share every iota of your views.

The Deist belief in a creator God who made all things represents the core and most important aspect of theism: indeed it captures the very meaning of the word “theist” primarily as one who believes in God.

So how anyone can say it has “not even a shadow” of Theism – and receive support for that statement, simply shows me that the world is lost.

Hello Inesqor –

Thanks for your reversions.

I am still severely at odds with certain inconsistencies which remain.

InesQor:
See, which means that darkness is defined relative to light. Since we cannot define "total darkness", then it is impossible that it once existed irrespective of total light. Darkness, I said, is a highly reduced amount of light, it thus CANNOT be self-existent or eternal or uncreated.

The foregoing is the reason I asked you the question: is Light something whereas darkness is nothing?

In your response somewhere below, you stated that Light is something – and that darkness is something as well – you said that they are both a “substance – each in its own right”

You must realize that that is a very difficult position to sustain in light of your statement above – for you have defined darkness as “a highly reduced amount of light” – thereby implying that darkness has no “substance” [/b]of its own,[/b] but is merely reduced light.

This is akin to saying that –

Plus and Minus exist –

Plus is an Orange but –

Minus is merely a reduced amount of the Orange.

Which is irredeemably wrong, because Plus and Minus are mutually parallel, self existent concepts. The Orange is an object – and one may apply the plus principle to it and add to the orange or apply the minus principle to it and subtract from the orange.

If you say that Darkness is a highly reduced amount of light, and then also claim that Darkness is a “substance” then it is incontrovertible that you regard darkness as being light – merely reduced.

Thus you have stated as follows –

Light = Light

Darkness = Light (Reduced).

And in the foregoing equation we can see following your statements, that only one thing exists: namely Light.

It thus emerges once again that you have stated darkness to be non-existent. For you, only Light exists, and what is called darkness is still light, merely reduced.

I am certain you have seen this aged question before: Is the cup half empty or half full? Well the truth is that whatever it is, it didn't start out that way. The cup either began to exist as an empty cup or as a full cup.

Your illustration of "up" and "down" too is quite relative. The one who mentions the words "up" and "down" is midway. He could never really have started out midway (unless you refer to the fallacy of Zeno's paradox) and as such, an absolute beginning would either have been from the TOP or the BOTTOM. Thus, at the beginning, either DOWN or UP alone would have existed. Today, we can refer to DOWN and UP because we are not at the beginning. We are midway. The same goes for light and darkness, we are not at the beginning, we are laggards in the schemes of light and darkness. We are midway. At the START, only ONE could have been present and not both.

The trouble with your analogy is that whereas we are speaking about transcendental and infinite matters, you have deduced a most terrestrial and finite analogy which does not fit.

The reason is this – it presumes a “beginning” and an “end” – a “top” or a “bottom.”

That is clearly reasoning within a finite prism. An infinite or eternal element cannot know any such thing as a “beginning” or an “end” or a “top” or a “bottom.” Thus you cannot speak of “the top or bottom of the cup” in a discourse relating to the existence of a transcendental and self existent element like the primordial light.

It is for this reason that rather than have any “start point” at which “there existed only Light,” it is more apt to think in terms of an eternal or timeless existence – wherein there will ALWAYS exist plus and minus and up and down, and negative and positive for the simple reason that there is no end point or terminal point in either direction!

Thus as a rough diagram I may put it thus –

< < < < < Infinity > > > >>

Wherein there is no terminal point because the element that we speak of is eternal –

Thus the reality of < or > exists eternally.

I hope you can in this way gain a slight apprehension of the point I am trying to put across: namely that once you eliminate the finite thinking that your analogy set up: it becomes clear that the elements “positive and negative” are non-contingent, self-existent elements and are symbolic of the parallel realities of “up and down” and light and darkness which are realities that exist in and of themselves in eternity.

This is the principle of duality inherent in reality, which I hope I have put across, albeit clumsily.

In my mind therefore, there is ONLY ONE ETERNAL REALITY, which by the ineluctable fact of its very existence and eternity, presupposes the eternal continuum of < and > such that Light and Darkness, just like positive and negative, self-exist.

I need hardly at this point state, as it should be obvious, that given then basis of this discussion as being about transcendental reality: the Light and Darkness that we speak of as being self-existent are not physical, but primordial immaterial realities.

I hope the foregoing has in some fashion been able to show you the vast differences between your suppositions and my suppositions – and underscore the fact that the analogies you used cannot be apt in a discussion of infinite or eternal quantities.

@Deep Sight:
Light is Something.
Darkness is ALSO Something.
In the above, the something is a lack of the influence of the something. But they are both substances, each in its own right.

I feel I have already dealt with this in the earlier part of my post. But for emphasis, look again at what you have written –

- You stated that both light and darkness are both “substances – each in its own right.

- This is very strange since you have described darkness as a reduced form of Light

- Thus contradicting yourself when you term darkness a “substance in its own right”

- Because you already made clear that only light exists – darkness merely being “reduced” light!

- A thing which is said to be a reduced amount of another substance is merely that same substance. Just as surely as a reduced amount of water is water. And a reduced amount of Fire is Fire. Thus “darkness” which you call a “reduced amount of Light” can only be the same substance as Light. This fact is ineluctable. Inescapable. Binding.

- Thus under your summations darkness is light.

Please do reflect on the foregoing, and be so kind as to revert to me:

I firmly believe that we should challenge our thoughts and reflect deeply on this matter: as it would lead us to deeper understandings of eternal truths.

Nuclear my Oga! ! !

You don finish me oooo! ! !

This cracked me up sooo hard, i had tears rolling down my cheeks as i laughed -

nuclearboy:
Quite a combination, ehn? How it goes is, you start off with a sharp head and education, throw in those two ^^^, add as much fornicating as can be imagined, finish off with the words "oneness of infinity" and out of the darkness comes, you got it, DeepSight!

Am i really that horrible? ? ?

@ OP & All - i absolutely love the posts and thought development going on here. I am glad to see some questions earlier raised have sparked off some thoughts.

I will revert with my thoughts.

_{And Nuclearboy please stop thinking i do this just for fun, that is not the case.}

viaro:
There's a vast difference between calling people names such as 'crook', fraud, etc. But to go as far as calling someone a slut is entirely another thing. No sensible person should be applauding such kinds of extremes - that wasn't cool.

King of insults, you are one to talk?

I do agree sha that that was a bit too much from him.

The Kunle i know is a gentleman par excellence.

He really must have been pushed to the wall. Be easy Kunle - you no need am, ok?

But i am surprised at this topic. Tudor routinely uses such language and nobody coughs. Maybe we've gotten used to him.

I once took him up cos he was calling mavenbox a "pissy b.itch." Regrettably the said mavenbox turned out to be a man. This life sha.