₦airaland Forum

Viaro - just be bold and take on the challenge below:

Viaro I hope you will dare to suggest that if humanity became extinct, there would be no specific amount of moons around Jupiter any more, until another set of humans arrive to count them.

If you can confidently state that there was not a specific quantity of moons around Jupiter before mankind came along, we will start the king of all crackdowns right here.

State it.

^^^ Gosh! So you still insist that there was no specific quantity of moons around Jupiter until mankind arrived to count them?

You still refuse to see that quantities exist, and that man merely created numeric figures to describe those already existing quantities?

This really beats me, you know.

Ah, it shouldn't - i recall you were the same person who told me that a yellow dress would have no hue if man did not create the word "yellow."

Frankly i am astounded that you cannot see that man may give names to quantities, and that does not mean he created such quantities.

I ask you again: Did man create the colour "yellow?"

Because i would have thought he only created a name for an already existing hue? ? ? ? ? ?

Come on!

viaro:
As a subscript, please note that numbers are not self-existent - they are part of the invented tools that man employs in researches. Once you miss that, you miss everything. . .

Viaro, deep inside I knew you would fall into this one. I just sensed that the self-existent nature of numbers is something you would not yet have apprehended or grasped.

This gives me great despair, because if you have not grasped this very simple step, it is no wonder that the ladder of esoteric abstract reasoning I keep trying to build seems like gibberish to you.

I cannot begin to explain what I have already explained before, so I’ll just let you review past posts on the nature of numbers.

This is from me to Krayola in one of the threads discussing God in empirical terms -

Would the fact that we were not around to count the earth change the fact that it was 1 (ONE) Earth, and not, for instance 2? Would that have changed the amount of stars in the milky way galaxy? Regardless of whether humans ever came around or not, there would still have remained a certain number of planets around the sun. Indeed, there would still be whatever number of galaxies in the universe - whether human arrived to articulate it or not. Therefore NO, Krayola, i hope you see now that numbers are not, and could never, be contingent on the human mind. We only ascribe names to already existing quantities - that much should be clear from the above analogies.

What you are doing amounts to stating that since we named animals, then animals are a construct of the human mind only. No - there were already eight moons around Jupiter, before we came and had to express that already existing number in our human words. Hope you are clear on this.

Viaro I hope you will dare to suggest that if humanity became extinct, there would be no specific amount of moons around Jupiter any more, until another set of humans arrive to count them.

Numbers are intangible: they are NOT a construct of the human mind: the human mind gave appellations to already existing quantities, in order to apprehend and rationalize such quantities.

Prizm had tried to clarify this for Krayola -

Prizm:
On the issue of numbers, one is correct in a sense when one says that numbers can be used to express some understanding of the physical world. But that naïve view does not invalidate the idea that numbers themselves exist. Otherwise they cannot be employed in any meaningful way by humans who purport to make rational and logical sense of the world. By some of the arguments here, numbers will cease to exist if the only things existing in the world were simple-celled micro-organisms incapable of apprehending the existence of numbers. That idea is simply absurd. Aggregates, a collection of units or sum totals of quantities (or Numbers) exist whether there are sentient or intelligent life forms around to count. It merely redounds to our credit as intelligent humans that we can apprehend a realm of numbers and as such can count things or represent numbers pictorially or visually with numerals.

Just think about this: Did the number 4 simply begin to exist the first time some first intelligent human existing some distant time in the past looked around and counted out 4 objects? As you can see the answer is clearly “No”. There are many other examples to illustrate the point. No one thought up or invented numbers. Numbers are not the product of our creative imaginations or abilities. The correct view is that humans are relatively more advanced life-forms who can comprehend the realm of numbers and as such can invent or think up a visual representation for numbers as numerals and apply them in their day-to-day life.

Still think Numbers are not self existent?

Viaro: It seems that you are not able to wrap your head around the words "come out of" and what they imply or connote as per the exhange between naijababe and banom. I can't really help further, save to state that you should reflect on the statement again: "something cannot come out of nothing." This statement clearly excludes self existent things: this is obvious on the face of the words alone - read the sentence again carefully if that glaring fact elludes you,

Time does not "come out of" anything. Nor do numbers. Nor does eternity. As such, viewing God within that prism given the premise set out by Naijababe simply amounts to jumping off a cliff. And Banom presupposed that in constructing his statement. He missed the vital fact that the premise does not refer to self existent things, since it clearly talks about things that have a beginning in saying - "come out of." But i sense you may not, nay, will chose not to see the clear point. So let's leave it and look to other things.

Bawo - Is there anything that you think does not require a cause? I recall you saying that the singularity from which the expansion referred to as the big bang proceeded could perhaps have always existed. Namely that it did not necessarily require a cause. How is that so: and could i not appropriate such eternity in the past to self existent things such as infinite time, and by extrension to that which i call the compound of all self-existent laws - God?

viaro:
He did not argue that God began to exist

He did -

'If you say some thing can not come out of nothing, you compound your task,
because you have to point out how God himself came into existence

Thereby implying that at some point God must have "come into existence"

Note the words in the first line above - "come out of". . .(highlighted). . . God is not said to "come out of" anything, being self-existent, thus leaving Naijbabe's statement intact.

Gnite.

viaro:
Even when naijababe had made the same compromising mistake of thinking that anyone can "prefer call it something else", banom was astute to warn that such was "a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him"; particularly on the question of something coming out of nothing. I like the very fine point he made, that:

'If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task,
because you have to point out how God himself came into existence,
it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify
him from being a God, (the uncaused cause that caused everything to come
into existence)" ~ post #16.

I cannot see what was astute as God is not said to begin to exist. He is said to have always existed being self-existent, such as infinite time or infinite space.

I retire for today.

Naijacutee, you have nailed away the weak points made by mazaje and wirinet in decisive terms. Well done.

Even if the supposed contradiction mooted by wirinet is actually a contradiction (and the jury is still out on that) i cannot see how it is a relevant or decisive contradiction worthy of mention.

Viaro, Krayola - i really would have thought it was simple enough to see that even if something remains a mystery, a few things about it may be understood. I gave the example of a scratching sound in a box. That we could infer that a creature was there. Or even that it has claws with which to scratch. But we may not be able to understand exactly what creature it is.

Even if that's not a perfect example then anyhow with all mysteries it's still the same. If a diamond ring goes missing from a safe we may be able to state with certainty that it's been moved away by a living person or creature. We may even be able to infer about what time it was moved, etc. This does not mean that we will solve the mystery.

Thus i cannot see how the fact that i insist that God's nature cannot be understood even while inferring a few parts of that nature should be a problem.

You guys really are adopting a frustrating black-and-white stand: namely that once something is a mystery then absolutely nothing about it can be known or inferred.

You both know that's a cop out and makes no sense at all. You Viaro, are aware that the Trinity, for instance, is categorized a sacred mystery and yet there are  many parts of it that you try to explain, infer or understand.

If you guys insist on this approach, i may not be able to continue.

Regards.

^^^ You must admit that the first cause argument in relation to the eternity/ infinity of time and space is, if not totally convincing to you, at least of more substance, or more reasoned than big kind daddy sitting in the sky waiting for jusgment day. . .

viaro:
Pardon me - and excuse my highlighting the words you used. It just wouldn't make any sense to speak unclearly in reference to God as a quantity - doing so puts that Being within the things caused and not that which is uncaused.

. . . . . . .

That is why when you posit a 'god' that is a 'quantity', you have buried it once and for all and made "it" a caused being, not an UNCAUSED being. Argue that I dwell too much on words - and your arguments would be meaningless until you aim to be clear when you communicate your ideas.

. . . . . . .

That cause is not a 'quantity' as you described.
I have: in reference to ex nihilo

.

Gosh, you do quibble about words. Let's cut to the chase: for your sake i herewith abandon the word "quantity." Let's say perhaps "Factor" as i indicated above. Happy now? Geez weez!

Premise 2:
Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.
this is similar to "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes from nothing )

Ex nihilo:
'creatio ex nihilo', meaning "creation out of nothing"
The God who created all things did so ex nihilo - created all things out of nothing.
~ this is simply saying that something came out of nothing: ex nihilo.


. . . . . Ex nihilo is a philosophical proposition as much as it is carried in theological ideologies.

I positively deny that it can be said that God created all things or anything[b] out of nothing. [/b]

I also positively assert that nothingness is itself inherently a non-existent quantity (oops, that word again!) - ok - non existent factor. In other words - there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist, and never has. This can be philosophically and mathematically inferred.

Might i state as an aside that (and please this is delicate so don't start hair-splitting the words, human language being a limited tool) - What would have been  nothingness, is actually the self-existent oneness of infinity, which is God.

Someone captured this excellently in another thread, when he wrote -

[quote author=AlaniTiógo link=topic=335826.msg5040580#msg5040580 date=1259838489]In my grope around these issues, I perceive God to be beyond perfection itself. Like Pastor said, he is ineffable. And Deepsight, please consider this: perfection is the tipping point to nothingness. Infinity, eternity, omnipotence- these are terms used in understanding God.[/quote]Rather than creation out of nothingness (which does not and has never existed), God created all things from the radiation of his divine and infinite substance. That is not "nothing." Every second, literarily, God is spawning zillions of universes and existences way beyond our imagination. This continues ceaselessly, and can be philosophically inferred. I will come back to this later if you are interested.

And how do you empirically determine that time is eternal and not created?

Note that i qualified my statement. I stated that infinite time is self existent and not created.

^^^ The Bible is a useful book of truth, and alonmg with numerous other spiritual works, i retain a copy in my personal library.

It is however riddled with errors, contradictions, mistranslations, misinterpretations, and outright insertions or deletions.

Not to speak of the unfathomable dogma of redemption by the official execution of a Jwish Carpenter.

In general terms however, the Bible is a very good read; and posesses many deep spiritual insights.

That is a photograph of Adolf Hitler when he was a baby. What is so angelic about that? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Pastor AIO:
Na one testicle you wan take marry jeSoul? Abeg go siddon jo!

She is a sister in the Lawd. By his name all things are possible. . .

^^^ Banom, i am still waiting for you to start giggling and tell us you have pulled the wool over our eyes. . .

JeSoul:
Jesus the man of Nazareth, the Son of God, born of a virgin Mary, lived a carpenters life, was baptized, gathered His 12 disciples, went around preaching and healing cannot be divorced or seperated from just "His teachings of love". To truly accept Him according to the bible, is to accept all of Him as put forth by the bible.

His Divinity is just as crucial as His humanity. If He is not God to you, and did not die to save you from your sins, then honestly, believing in His teachings is of little significance, because you have rejected Him as stated in Romans 3:17.

Thus you subcribe to the view of your Team Lead, Noetic, that Mahatma Ghandi is going to hell?

banom:
Sister be prayerful those guys are unbelievers, they are not made for you, God bless you.

^^^^ Rubbish! I will convert permanently to Jesus once she crooks her little finger. I believe in female domination, by the way, so my wife's wish is my command.

Yes, darling, did you say i should go do the dishes. . . i'm hurrying now please.

^^^^^ Iyawo. . . Let somebody shout hallelujah. . .!

I will attend Church four times a week including night vigil and permanent fasting for life once you accept me as your truly beloved and reject the presumptuous, vile, unsuitable, impostors and charlatans - Mazaje and ToneyB.

By the way, i will cut off their heads.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=361787.msg5051012#msg5051012 date=1259957987]And where does your Godhead idea come from?

What makes your idea right and the others wrong?

Why should we accept your idea and reject others? [/quote]Because mine is goooooose and theirs is baaaaaaaass

viaro:
I think if you carefully re-consider what is being sought after in the enquiry of several readers, no less of bawolomo's, it is not a question of the "quantity" but of its "nature". In essence, what is the "nature" of this Being of which (he supposed) he was not supposed to comprehend?

If it was rather a question of the "quantity" per se, it would seem quite odd and really out of place for the enquirer to have quizzed about adumbrating (giving an outsketch of) the nature of the said Being - to wit it would be a waste of time "searching for knowledge about a being whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend". It was not about the "quantity", lol - but rather about the "nature" of that Being.

I should make clear that Bawo calls himself an atheist. As you well know, atheism connotes a denial of the existence of God. Atheism is not, strictly speaking, a dialogue about the attributes of God. Whatever attributes we may suppose, atheism altogether denies that God EXISTS.

Thus i think you have mis-apprehended the issue: I seek to negate atheistic thought by proving the EXISTENCE of God - not the nature of God.

It will thus be sufficient for me if i can show that something exists which caused the universe - i needn't go further to talk about that thing being kind or loving or merciful.

Capisce?

viaro:
Be that as it may, but is this Being (this 'God' we talk about in common parlance) to be understood at first instance as a "quantity"? I think such ideologies is tends to vagueness and leaves you readers more perplexed than at the beginning.

. . . . . .  .

And thus the same 'God' is defined as a 'quantity'? I just want you to get steady here, because the careless use of these inexcusable adjuncts (accessory, auxiliaries; supplements,) will just not cut it for you.

If 'God' is a 'quantity', philosophically that 'quantity' is also caused and not in itself uncaused! We know of many 'quantities' whose 'nature' are yet unclarified even though their existences are inferred from their characteristics - example: dark energy and dark matter. Yet, these 'quantities' do not in any way cause things to begin to exist, even though they have effects on other entities in existence.

You dwell far too much on words. I use the word "quantity" exactly to hamstring the atheist who may challenge any other word i use, such as "he" or "she". Quantity here simply means anything that exists, or is being said to exist. I may also say "Factor."

Quote
Premise 2: Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.

Hehe - philosophers can quite easily trash that and turn it on its head. I could do that, if Bawo permits me.

I postively challenge you to do this.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Self Existent things (such as infinite time) do not require a cause.

Ready to go?

How do you come to that premise - empirically, that is? Just how? You only "inferred" this factor/premise and yet talked about "advanced power" -

Observation: The Pyramids in Giza are large and complex. Deduction: Great skill and man power was involved in their construction. Is the inference now clear? I cannot see what quarrel you could have with that reasoning.

would that be outside or within the nature which you had stated "We cannot understand or grasp its nature"?

Are you suggesting to me that once you observe that a laptop computer can show pictures, you have grasped its entire nature? ? ? ?

Oh there! So seeing one attribute of an entity by no means indicates that we can grasp its compound nature.

All clear? ? ?

_{P.S: You don't have to explain in brackets the meanings of each word that you use. That supposes that your readers are illiterate, or semi-literate only?}

@ Huxley - have you known me so little that you put these questions to me?

Have i ever called myself a Christian or Muslim?

I am pleased you said "according to the bible". . . because the bible also records that the sun stood still while the Israelites routed their enemies. It records that a donkey spoke human language. It records that a man was turned into a pillar of salt. It records that food fell from the skies. Do you believe any of these things?

So please do not tell me "according to the bible." I am no bible apologist.

And No - Jesus is not God anymore than Guru Maharaji is God.

Can the same not be said for Christians?

Alhaji Olabowale - By the term "Godhead" i simply mean the totality of the entity that is God, and its ontological nature.

P.s: I do not subscribe to the paganistic, imaginary and outrightly blasphemous trinity doctrine.

Kay17 - Olabowale is a staunch Muslim

JeSoul:
b) Sincere non-christian who heard about Jesus Christ and rejected Him:
John 3 [color=#000099]“There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him (Jesus). But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged and condemned for not believing in God’s one and only Son.

Is it safe to assume that by the term "does not believe in him," you refer not to people who reject the man Jesus of Nazareth (perhaps as "God", or as "Saviour" or "Messiah", but to people who reject his teachings of Love?

^^^ If that's the best you could get out of my words, fine.

Kay 17:
why did the your prime mover create us?

1. Intrinsic and instinctive self-expression.

2. Outward radiation.

Any person with a remote idea of what the Godhead is or what it signifies would know certainly that no man could ever see God, or approach God or directly "encounter" God in person one on one.

God is absolutely intangible and inexpressible and no living being could approach God.

So your scenario cannot happen: and if it did, clearly the entity in question parading itself as God must be a fraudulent Nigerian Con Artist.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=357796.msg5043319#msg5043319 date=1259863252]Hi Deepsight. My earlier post which you quoted implied what you are saying. But to put it as clearly as you put it is correct and corresponds to the truth but to put it that way as a scientific fact will have serious problems. I am a scientist and when speaking to people who only believe science, one has to learn to speak to them in their language and providing the necessary caveat. In this way some may consider what you are saying and may finally come to the Truth. But if you put it as plainly as you do to people with scientific background, that may be a turn off. Thus the inclination or background of the questioner determines ones approach. Stay blessed.[/quote]Point taken. Thanks always.

Sauer -

I do not subscribe to any religion.

But i am a theist, since i believe in the existence of God.

I can define God in a number of ways.

1. The compound of all self-existent laws

2. The oneness of infinity.

Is there anything irrational about this?

viaro:
Yea, I know you're drawing from what others (eg., Deep Sight) have said, that: 'God certainly is and remains incomprehensible to every human mind', but that was an unqualified statement. Indeed, he (Deep Sight) had attempted to 'make a certain clarification here', alas! it might have proven quite an obfuscation than a clarification. More so as he adds the subscript that: 'We may not be ble to apprehend the quantity, what it means and its nature: but we can certainly apprehend that it is there and this we can do empirically, but better still - intuitively'.

Sometimes it is best to forefend such unqualified statements - avoid them altogether, as one may very easily be fazed as to their far reaching consequences. How in the world is one to understand a connection between these antipodes:

(a) 'we may not be ble to apprehend the quantity'

(b) 'but we can certainly apprehend that it is there'

Viaro -

I think you have put the emphasis in the wrong places.

The emphasis should be -

(a) We may not be able to apprehend the quantity (We cannot understand or grasp its nature)

(b) But we can certainly apprehend that it is there. (We can see that it exists)

Which makes the statement clear: to wit: we cannot understand the nature of the quantity, but we can see that it exists. Such as the fact that we might not be able to determine the nature of the creature making the scratching sound in the box is, but we can infer that there is something in that box.

viaro:
In which case, perhaps what you might be saying is that we first have to 'proffer' some working presuppositions (rather than 'establish' any ideas) and then examine these postulations by further 'exploring' them. This, I suppose, is the logical premise of progressing the discussion.

Alright, if Bawo needs working presuppositions, let's try this -

Premise 1: 0 + 0 = 0: Thus no aggregation or compoundment of zeroes will every make 1.

Premise 2: Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.

Premise 3: The Universe is Something.

Premise 4: Since somethingness cannot proced from nothingness, then clearly something caused the Universe.

Premise 5: Whatever that factor is, is what i call God.

Premise 6: Given the nature, size and complexity of the Universe, one attribute i can infer for that factor is Advanced Power.

Bawo?

KunleOshob:
Before we can make any meaningful dialogueon this subject, we first have to be clear on three things namely:

(i) What does it mean to be a christian?
(ii) What is the true gospel of Jesus christ?
(iii) Is it belief in the teachings of Jesus that is necessary for salvation or belief in him as a person?


_{(iv) What does it really mean to belief in a person?
(v) In practical terms what does salvation really mean?}

Answer to (1) Love God and love your fellow man

Answer to (ii) Love God and Love your Fellow Man

Answer to (iii) Love God and Love your fellow Man.

My poor understanding only. . .

^^^ But a large part of sharia law deals with cultural values.

What do you make of the distinction between Core and Cultural Values i tried to discuss above?

toneyb:
You are now beginning to display your lawyer credentials by putting words into people's mouths. Where did he Insinuate what you have written above?

Not so fast Tony -

This is where he said it -

Kay 17:
my conclusion is that the basis for determining right or wrong cannot be the generality of societies but by that particular society's standards.

Thus if human sacrifice is right in Aztec land, then morally there is nothing wrong with continuously killing people for such purposes.

Whereas i had sought to point to the generality of societies, he made reference to the moral determinant being individual societies -

Thus the Nazi Holocaust was morally right, according to Kay17.

I hope you can see. . .