₦airaland Forum

Someone once made an argument for homosexuality using the following premises -

Quote from: SEFAGO on September 24, 2009, 02:10 PM

Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals
2) Animals engage in homosexuality
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

I rebutted that argument with the following, which i repeat here:

Premise 1 - Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans undisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

Premise 2 - Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate:If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalistic terms.

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalistic statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be - "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

If it is not the norm within the animan sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in excercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of masturbation on any available entity.

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Given that the premise fails, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion states: "Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior."

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addittion to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

With a heavy heart, although i do appreciate SEFAGO's good efforts and good reasoning, i am constrained on the basis of the deductions set forth above, to conclude that both his premises and his conclusion are deficient and significantly flawed even in terms of logic alone, but also in terms of sociological and biological considerations.

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

>>>>It shows us that the universe began to expand from a point, a singularity.

We have seen that that singularity may be described as a oneness of all infinity. We have seen that it was imbued with, and was, a “hot capsule of infinite energy” as I stated before. We have seen that invisible energy continues to propel more than 70% of it.

We can accordingly deduce that the oneness of infinity imbued with infinite energy caused it to begin to expand from that singularity, and sustains it with invisible energy till date. This is what I call God, and as we go along will see why this infinite force is per force self conscious.

Panting from the the hectic dash, we move speedily along, avoiding delays and distractions, to the next proof. This one, i must concede, will take the form of an explanatory deduction, and not a pure mathematical argument. In this, we need to address a cardinal question:

Krayola:
so where does God come into the picture? let's get to the koko of the matter.

Krayola:
Let's pretend everything in that post is accurate and true. How does that God = Transcendent creator.

Great. Let’s start from here. But before we kick off, let me regurgitate this –

Deep Sight:
I do not quite see it that way. I disagree that all the matter in the universe could have been packed into, or existing in a dot of a point. I am rather persuaded that it is energy that was concentrated in the singularity and on this there is considerable scientific thinking (as per Energy turning into, or being matter). Let me be quick to accept, before you slice off my head, that energy and matter are interrelated in the transitory fashion that you pointed out, but there is a subtlety which colours my own perception of things. . .

I am  persuaded that the oneness of infinity which I described above is in fact a “hot-capsule” of all infinite possible energy (not material), and that this energy formed the basis for the explosion/ expansion into matter. I will use this point to address Krayola’s question on the coming into being of matter at a later point in this discourse.

Yes. Back to “the oneness of infinity.” Are there any problems envisaging this as a “hot capsule” of all possible infinite energy? Let us use a detailed analysis to understand this, so we are clear that we do not speak only of matter.

I started this thread with numeric postulations. This we understand to be a system of abstract quantification. The very word “abstract” indicates certainly the non-material. Thus we need to understand that this postulation starts in what philosophers call “the world of forms”.

Basically, for the beginner, the world of forms refers to the “ideas” of things existing. It is non-material, and abstract. (As we go along we will see that it is transcendent, and is the real “existence” which brings further or material existence into being.)

Thus to elucidate (contrary to the poorly informed view of Davidylan) numbers are abstract forms which exist in and by themselves within the world of forms. Man did not invent numbers. He invented symbols and words to ascribe to already existing quantities. For example, if man saw 9 planets around the sun, those planets have been 9 in number ever before man began to exist on Earth, but man required a way to articulate the quantity he was seeing – and in this he comes up with his own numeric system, the figure [9] and the word [nine]. But there were always nine [quantity] planets there already! Just as there were already x zillion galaxies in the universe, whether man was there to count them or not, or use the word "zillion" or not!

Numbers are an abstract form, an abstract reality that exists in the world of forms.

The reason I am dwelling on this is to show one thing – abstract realities can create energy, and further on, matter. Proof?

A crude example. What’s that thought in your head? Can you touch it? Feel it? Smell it? No – It is intangible, it is an abstract form, and this abstract form because it has meaning will lead to energy and action e.g: you get up to drink the beer in the fridge you have ben thinking about. This is a very crude and simple analogy, and I will strive to produce better ones as I go along. But to make a slightly better attempt, let me try another crude example. Let me ask – what is mental strength? Or what is called strength of mind? It is not muscle. It is not brain-cells either, as that may be tied with intelligence. It is not even synapses within the brain. It is nothing physical at all. It comes rather from the thoughts formed by the mind: e.g: I love my family and as such I will run into that burning building to save them even if I die or am maimed in the process. That is strength of mind. It does not come from anything physical, but from an abstract thought.

(Perhaps a finer example, which i will elaborate further upon at a later time, is music. Imagine all the un-sung or un-conceived tunes of music that can be. There are infinite. They are un-conceived as yet, yes? Wwhere will they be conceived from? Ideas - they exist permanently and immutable in the world of forms, and that will translate into conceived music at some point.)

Thus strength can be derived from abstraction. It therefore follows abstract realities, by the very nature of their abstraction are imbued with energy. I realize that this is a very “grandiose” assertion (apologies to Dususpace) which we may be light years away from confirming, but I am persuaded that a simple and calm reflection of the line of thinking, and looking closely at what we mean by an abstraction, along with the very crude analogies above, can serve to confirm this in our minds.

Yes guys, the abstract form of the number [1] is imbued with energy.

Now back to the Oneness of Infinity. I have already described above what that means.

Now what sort of energy would such a oneness of all infinity in existence exhibit. Clearly, it will exhibit infinite energy!

Thus we have the basis for energy being imbued within the oneness of all empty infinity.

Now with that in mind, let us take a look at our own universe. Are there any suggestions of an underlying pulsating energy which may be attributed to such?

Yes there is –

[size=16pt]Dark Energy[/size]
From Wikipedia.
In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 74% of the total mass-energy of the universe.[2]
Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously,[3] and scalar fields such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar fields that are constant in space are usually also included in the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is physically equivalent to vacuum energy. Scalar fields which do change in space can be difficult to distinguish from a cosmological constant because the change may be extremely slow.
High-precision measurements of the expansion of the universe are required to understand how the expansion rate changes over time. In general relativity, the evolution of the expansion rate is parameterized by the cosmological equation of state. Measuring the equation of state of dark energy is one of the biggest efforts in observational cosmology today.
Adding the cosmological constant to cosmology's standard FLRW metric leads to the Lambda-CDM model, which has been referred to as the "standard model" of cosmology because of its precise agreement with observations. Dark energy has been used as a crucial ingredient in a recent attempt[4] to formulate a cyclic model for the universe.

What can we glean? The universe is pulsating with a constantly moving and unseen energy. As it expands outward, this energy cannot be quantified.

Let us return to the Big Bang.

davidylan:
Which is why you cant point to a single one of them in the last 2 days? You started this thread, why have you fled like the ignorant coward you truly are?

David, you are delivering a Master-class in Escapism! For Christ's sake, i quoted 12 verses for you in which the explicit and clear suggestion was made within the Bible that Jesus was not and is not, God. You are yet to address them!

David, I opened a thread for Noetic some time ago, asking him to explain why he thought only Christians would be "saved". Although he did not convince me, please visit that thread and see what a thorough, exhaustive, painstaking job he did in presenting his position, analysing the bible, and defending every article of his faith thereon.

See the link here - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-336988.0.html

I charge you to STOP the escapism and address ALL my verses. This thread was opened for you to educate me on the meaning of those verses, and it hardly helps if rather than do that, you simply bring your own verses and demand that I explain them (which I did not shy away from doing, by the way!).

This is a strange approach, because I am not the Christian here, you are. So why are you giving me verses to explain? You should please explain the verses I quoted and stop the somersaults.

Here we go again: If Jesus were God, why would he stop a man from calling him good, insisting - no - "only God is Good?" Did Jesus ("God" become less good by dint of being upon the earth?

Did the import of 1 Tim. 2:5 miss you when it states that “there is ONLY ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Jesus Christ.”

What do you understand by the word “mediator”? Can you realistically claim that a mediator is the same person as one of the entities he is acting as a go-between for? You know that is frankly absurd.

Can you tell me if Jesus is equal to the Father. If he is, can you educate me on what he could possibly have meant when he stated : “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). You earlier answer, you well know, was the height of escapism, asking me to go read the whole chapter. . . which I have done anyway.

Most importantly, can you shed light on Jesus’ repeated references to “his God.” He clearly showed himself to be worshipping God, even praying to God on several occasions. Could God pray to God? Does this make sense to you David?

[b]The most spectacular of all his prayers, for me, is the statement in Gethsemane – “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”

This statement shows something cardinal: if Jesus were God, as you lot like to claim, his will, and the will of the Father would be absolutely inseparable! This prayer shows clearly that the Father’s will could be different from Jesus’ will, when he says – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. For me this is the most damning verse against the idea that Jesus is himself God. Because it shows a clear dichotomy of WILL between the father and the so called “son.” But I expect that in your usual fashion you will disregard Jesus’ own words in favour of your dogma.

In defending this, don’t you even dare bring up the lame line that it was his “human fear” that was speaking. Even mere mortals have shown great courage at the point of execution, or in battle, and you want to convince me that ALMIGHTY GOD, in human form, was not capable of stout hearted courage (especially when he was divine, and knew the purpose of his mission on the cross, and how sacred it was).[/b] Mere men have laid down their lives for their countries, happily and without asking for the cup to be removed from them. Gallantly! Now GOD himself, in human form, is not capable of such courage, to save his creatures?

Face it David: your dogma is more precious to you than the words of Jesus himself, who you call saviour and “God”!

Finally it is most pertinent to note that Jesus showed what sort of relationship he had with God when he says – “I am ascending to your father and my father, my God and your God”. [John 20:17]

This makes it pretty clear that in the same way as God is father for us, he is Father for Jesus, and that in the same way as God is God for us, he is God for Jesus.

No wonder 1 Pet. 1:3 – “Praise be to the God and father of our lord Jesus Christ!”

NOW STOP THE CIRCUS ANTICS, FACE THE VERSES ONE AT A TIME LIKE A MAN, AND DEAL WITH THEM SQUARELY.

Otherwise, I will be forced to call in the more competent Noetic to address this thread.

Now finally, juxtapose your so called verses against these verses of mine, and tell me the skeptic is not justified in seeing contradictions (even though i have shown you your verses are mistranslations and mis-interpretations).

Viaro - If that Dog's head was severred only for the sake of the experiment, that is gross cruelty to animals!

If we were born naked, why shouldn't we live naked?

Make babies naked.

Die naked.

Return to Earth naked. . .

gentleemmy:
Not really. God did not cover that part with the cloth He made for Eve, did He? Those private parts thats what I mean. what do you think?

^^^ Good, so a Bikini and strapless bra is sufficient, yes?

Brilliant Viaro, just brilliant, and that's really delightrful prose in the first post, really really. . .

At this preliminary stage, perhaps it is not out of place to add one or two little twists to the purpose of this discourse. Actually you have already stated it all, but for emphasis -

1. What do the discussants regard as the purpose of their individual lives. . . I ask this, and i invite everyone to give honest, free answers personal to them. . . i believe that we, and this discussion, will be greatly enriched thereby.

2. Do we have a perception of a "common" or "collective" mind of humanity or the world? If we do, what is this "collective" and does it mean anything in determining the purpose of our existence.

And finally, one question which i would love to put to everybody is this one. . . I know it may seem irrelevant and off-tangent now, but its not really. . .

Do you think illogicalities exist?

Chrisbenogor:
Furthermore I opened a thread where I specifically asked him if it was important for us to know if God exists, he says no then I ask why waste pages here proving his existence?

Chris, please put in proper context what i said in that thread in reaction to your question:

Deep Sight:
Thus, globally speaking, one does not necessarily have to know, interact with, or even contemplate God in order to live a fruitful life on a basic level, as God in his Divine Abstraction is absolutely unsearchable and indeed incomprehensible.

Nevertheless it is important to add that knowing the things of God, the laws of God, and the purposes of God will enrich a man's life beyond compare. We can decipher these things by reading the Book of Life - which is nature around us. Therein, all the secrets, all the lessons, and all the things of God which we need to know, are clearly revealed. Therein, without recourse to any church or mosque, and without recourse to any "saviour" or "prophet", every man can discern his conscience, and live in justice and purity, with a bold hope of one meaningful and beautiful life after another.

To my mind, the only real danger inherent in not believeing in God, is that it leads some people to entirely doubt the existence of any spirituality whatsoever, and i am certain that such an attitude will serve to weaken the spiritual part of a persons's life, in some degree or the other.

gentleemmy:
Lets emulate the decency of God - covering the parts that ought to be covered and viceversa. What is worth doing is worth doing well - if you must cover a part at all then, cover it well, Simple! abi wetin una think joh

So you are recommending this for us - ??

Viaro. . .where will you create that thread?

viaro:
Deep Sight, so that this thread would enjoy a tidy flow and not be derailed, I'm considering a new thread for us to talk more on this dimension stuff. You captivated my imagination on a few pointers which I'd hitherto not considered deeply enough. What say you?

Great, i am really game. . . i do wonder what section would be ideal for it though. . . this is why i had begged the Admin to create a Child Board for Theology, Philosophy and other abstract stuff. . .

^^^ Its Swaziland. Whats so maddening about these new age hypocrites is that 90% of Africans dressed very skimpily indeed, in many cultures women even going entirely topless - before the advent of the white man. This is only natural and in keeping with the sweltering heat that governs most of Africa.

Now these brain-washed new-age goons go about insisting that we must be dressed as monks and nuns under the dictates of an imported culture.

Colo-mentality!

Chrisbenogor:
The above comes across to me as though deep sight just finished eating bole and smoked fish with God.

ROTFLMAO! LOL! Chris, you no go kill person o!

Look, it ain't a sharia society we live in, thank heavens. You hypocrites who want to cover up from head to toe, you got two options -

  1. Move to Saudi Arabia (trust me, the women there are very very well covered up) OR

  2. Support the ridiculous bill before the senate in Naija that seeks to regulate and determine how you, free citizens should dress.

For mess's sake the female body is a spectacle to behold (not marion Jones sha) and from time immemorial till time eternity, it will always be celebrated through exposure.That is ONLY natural.

You lot go hang - Viva la Venus! Viva la Ishtar! Viva la Astarte!

Hypocrites. Abeg make una go establish ya sharia state for one corner jaare!

Mazaje, me i no fit judge whether flood happen or e no happen as i no bin dey there, ok, but i'll tell you this much, sea shells have been found on mountain ranges along with other inexplicable things. The Earth is pretty old, so we cant tell what seismic or environmental catastrophes may have occurred in the past. Look at the legend of Atlantis for example?

The video is a perfect description of Davidylan. David is definitely not a christian, (read: christ-like) given his abusive and abrasive nature, reminds one of a motor park tout. He is simply a dogmatic fanatic religionist.

But getting serious, the video reminds one that the cult of christianity is no different from any other cult with ideas of worshipping the leader of the cult as God. Only the force and direction of history and imperialism makes it relevant today. There's no difference between Jesus and Olumba Olumba in my view, really. If the Yoruba's had conquered the world, we would all be referring to Oduduwa as the Christ, and any person who scorns that would be viewed as being on the way to hell.

That shows one of two things -

Either

1. That it is clear that scripture contains massive contradictions OR

2. People are not reading scripture with a compound approach.

Neither is complimentary.

Abi o, giant contradictions that David will not accept. . . but a comprehensive reading shows emphatically that the bible does not teach that Jesus is God.

^^^ Pastor, i am sure as glaring and explicit as this verse is in terms of resolving this issue, Davidylan and Noetic will reject it.

What intrigues me most about Christian fanatics such as David is their ready willingness ro REJECT scripture outright when it contradicts their dogma.

^^^ Dudu, i will not be drawn right now, but let me quickly correct one thing: i did not say that human minds are the bench mark for abstract realities. I said a mind. This mind i regard as existential or universal. But enough of this for now.

davidylan:
this is a waste of time . . . using mathematical symbols to allegedly explain the existence of God is simply an ego trip for most here. God either exists or does not . . . using numbers that man invented barely 5000 yrs ago is laughably ridiculous.

David as you may have noticed, this thread is not for Religionists, and i did not expect you here, please leave off. If you think that numbers were invented by humans or 5000 years ago for that matter, that's evidence of what i have always believed, namely that you need to limit yourself to Bible discussions because cosmological discussions and abstract philosophy are clearly way out of your league.

duduspace:
Is Viaro a cardsharp of some sort? even though I believe Deepsight is jumping to a lot of conclusions here but I must commend Viaro's considerable mathematical understanding and ability. I will take time to find some holes in these hasty assumptions (and I'm sure there must be).
Now yu mention the name of a mere mortal, and I can't help but answer your call and point out that I didn't miss anything. I agree that within such an eternity as I envisaged, zero is a possibility but have yu considered that it might be a possibility yet to happen? only problem is that if it actually exists and happens, it wouldn't matter because there will be no one to witness its existence.

Remember also that in the prior discussion which you referred to, you did indicate that my assertions were based on the premise that something already existed, even you with your mathematical rigmarolling have now returned to my starting point by pointing our that "Nothingness could not exist" (something I won't dispute because I'm yet to see it and accepted only as a theoretical construct) Now, if we go with your logic that Nothingness cannot exist, then the next logical step is to assume the position that the Universe/matter has always existed  and has only been transitory as we continue to evidence in the various cycles we see through life itself (also tying in nicely with one of your earlier proofs of l

You might be hasty to assume that this cannot be possible because of "The big bang theory" implying the beginning of the universe but just consider for a second that all of what we see at present (as the presently expanding universe) must have been implicitly contained within the singularity subsequently transiting into the Universe we know of in the present.
.

Sorry, but this is absolute hocus pocus, how exactly do you go from 2 to 3 and what is the relationship? is 3 the only thing that mathematics infers or vice versa? how exactly did you come about your grandiose assertion in 4? have you truly eliminated all other possibilities? and how did yu get to 6?
This proof is totally dubious, I'm sure Viaro wouldn't support you on this.

Duduspace –

This is a very useful and insightful post, and I can understand your concerns.

Let me attempt to address them.

duduspace:
I agree that within such an eternity as I envisaged, zero is a possibility but have yu considered that it might be a possibility yet to happen? only problem is that if it actually exists and happens, it wouldn't matter because there will be no one to witness its existence.

I agree. But I wonder if you have absorbed the discourses above on the nature of zero. Fundamentally however, I agree with you.

duduspace:
Now, if we go with your logic that Nothingness cannot exist, then the next logical step is to assume the position that the Universe/matter has always existed  and has only been transitory as we continue to evidence in the various cycles we see through life itself (also tying in nicely with one of your earlier proofs of l

You might be hasty to assume that this cannot be possible because of "The big bang theory" implying the beginning of the universe but just consider for a second that all of what we see at present (as the presently expanding universe) must have been implicitly contained within the singularity subsequently transiting into the Universe we know of in the present.

Again I agree. It seems to me the only divergence between us on this point is the nature of the singularity. You see it as infinitely containing already all that the universe has in terms of matter. And I accept that this is the way most of science may see it.

I do not quite see it that way. I disagree that all the matter in the universe could have been packed into, or existing in a dot of a point. I am rather persuaded that it is energy that was concentrated in the singularity and on this there is considerable scientific thinking (as per Energy turning into, or being matter). Let me be quick to accept, before you slice off my head, that energy and matter are interrelated in the transitory fashion that you pointed out, but there is a subtlety which colours my own perception of things. . .

I am  persuaded that the oneness of infinity which I described above is in fact a “hot-capsule” of all infinite possible energy (not material), and that this energy formed the basis for the explosion/ expansion into matter. I will use this point to address Krayola’s question on the coming into being of matter at a later point in this discourse.

duduspace:
Sorry, but this is absolute hocus pocus, how exactly do you go from 2 to 3 and what is the relationship? is 3 the only thing that mathematics infers or vice versa? how exactly did you come about your grandiose assertion in 4? have you truly eliminated all other possibilities? and how did yu get to 6?
This proof is totally dubious, I'm sure Viaro wouldn't support you on this.

Now I emphatically disagree. Look at the proof again, and put it in proper context.
First you said there is no nexus between premises 2 & 3 and you wondered how I came about the “grandiose” assertion in No. 4. I was mildly surprised at that. Here it is again –

Deep Sight:
2. Such Co-existence and multiplication results in the continuous and infinite permutations possible within mathematics

  3. Mathematics infers reason, logic and a rational basis for existence

  4. A Rational Basis for existence can only be based on a rationality of the core of existence (the singularity) and thus -

What part of this does not make sense? Is it not true that abstractions exist? Is it not true that there is a continuous and infinite stream of possible permutations within mathematics (itself an abstract science)? Is it not true that mathematics is governed by logic? Or is it governed by randomness? If these are true, could a precise abstract science such as this have imprecision or randomness as its basis? You really need to examine again what you are saying here.

Finally you attacked my assertion that the very existence of mathematics presupposes a universal mind.

Let me ask you – what do you understand by the abstract nature of numbers. Hell, what do you understand by the word “abstract” in the first place? Do you not see the indestructible link between the very fact of the existence of an abstraction, and the fact of a mind thereon Dudu – let me put it simply – abstractions in themselves are a compound mind, and the word “abstraction” cannot exist outside of a mind. Thus the whole gamut of existence, is per-force a mind, within which we exist. But I am getting ahead of myself here. Let me not muddy the waters yet by going too far. But I ask that you reflect closely on this. Particularly on abstractions.

Krayola:
@ deepsight. . . counting does not end at 9. We just use the system we do because we don't want to have to remember any more symbols. IMO our counting system is utility driven and not some divine cosmological set-up that tells us some secret about how anything is the way it is.

Base ten counting was not pioneered by mathematicians or astrologers or philosophers. It was pioneered by merchants. . .trading and drawing symbols in the sand - an extension of their fingers, which ran out at ten. As people needed to do more complex calculations, the systems evolved and now we have what we do today.

As long as every number up to the base number has its own symbol, and we have a "place holder" (has no value but tells us something), we can compute all sorts of shit. Base ten just works fine. The babylonians used base 60. . and we still use this in our 60 seconds or minutes, 360 degree circles and 180 degree triangles. So a different base system was able to teach us stuff that we still use today long before we started using base ten counting. The system just wasn't practical because to do really complex stuff one would need to have a different symbol for every number from 1 to 59, and a place holder, zero. 1-9 is easier and IMO that is why we use it today.

Pastor AIO:
Are we aware of the difference between numbers and numerals. And that we could just as well have a numerical system based on base 11 in which case the number ten might be represent by a numeral such as *. So you would have:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, *, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 , 16, 17, 18, 19, 1*, 20 . . . .

The point is well taken and i will return to it later, but i need it to be clearly understood that this is a side issue arising from viaro's post and deals with the existence of dimensions and not the existence of God. Thus these points take nothing away from the premises which were about the mathematical existence of God.

Although i disagree (and i will come back later to that), i must say the above is a fair attempt. Can we carry on the discussion by addressing the other quotes in my write-up. The next ones are -

1 Tim 2: 5

and

John 14: 28.

Thanks.

We move speedily along to the next proof.

Having already established an infinite expansion of abstract quantities from a singularity (the oneness of infinity) we can infer that:

1. As earlier explained, abstract quantities by co-existence multiply into infinity

2. Such Co-existence and multiplication results in the continuous and infinite permutations possible within mathematics

3. Mathematics infers reason, logic and a rational basis for existence

4. A Rational Basis for existence can only be based on a rationality of the core of existence (the singularity) and thus -

5. The singularity is rational, reasonable and logical in its nature (mathematical)

6. The deduced rationality is the quality of mind;

7. The abstract mind inferred thereby is the complete image: an unembodied universal mind which we call God.

^^^^Apologies. But i do hope you will find the time to address my verses. Thanks.

Where is Huxley? Let him come and answer this case himself.

Davidylan, are you running away?

viaro:
You, Deep Sight, are very, very smart indeed!

_{For a moment, I thought my name would be on the list of most wanted for crimes to humanity - at least, for almost highjacking your thread. Yet, thank goodness that's not the case - and yes, we're onto some very interesting stuff here.}

Let me start from the end bit:

There could be such a thought in gestation, I believe - who knows?

As for transitions between dimensions, you're absolutely correct to infer that a zero (or possibly a double zero) holds the key of that possibility. A computer's binary operation is a ready example (albeit really insufficient an analogy) - because the two digits commonly used are '1' and '0'. So, who knows how many possibilities are there on the zero index. . .?

Hmm, that's interesting. I fed the operation into an algorithm system and it showed just one occurrence of 8. Also got down to brass tacks working it out manually - again just one occurrence of 8 there. We should notice that the 8 appears on the right side of the set of numbers but is absent on the left side (between the highlighted 7 and 9):

            1   2   3   4   5   6   7   9  0   1   2   3   2   0   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

That's just a small matter.


However, the rest of your observations still command my respect; albeit, some comments at 'nothing' and 'zero' may not yet go the distance.

Agreed, only in context of "abstract quantifying". But when testing out other factoring, the zeros are necessary, or all other entities immediately lose their values and become meaningless. Meaninglessness does not mean non-existence; it only demonstrates that qualities and quantities are there but undefined.

Take the earlier result for the 12 digits multiplied by themselves in that order

             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1    x    1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

. .  the result, we know, is a large number:

            1   2   3   4   5   6   7   9  0   1   2   3   2   0   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

Now, removing the '0' from that result would give a false 'mirror'. The point is that the '0' does not appear in the equation; but the same is not true for the transformation (or result) which has the '0' by definition, implication and necessity.

Well, there is a dimension beyond the 9th. I earlier noted the example of existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension. Perhaps the video at the link below might help to stir your interest in that direction? here:

     http://www.break.com/index/how-to-imagine-the-tenth-dimension.html

On the whole, you've made my entry to Nairaland worthwhile.

No, I verily believe that you are a reincarnated Albert Einstein masquerading as a modest and humble Nairalander, taunting nit-wits like me with praises designed to prod me towards coming closer to your own already exceedingly high standards.

But let me start from the bit about a 10th Dimension. I wasn’t able to watch the video you posted, despite several attempts, as I don’t have the latest Flash Player, installing it still proves abortive. So my comments here are without prejudice to that.

Let me say first off, that I have always been one of those who believe that trillions of universes may exist, within trillions, or an infinity of endless dimensions.

I did not intend by my last post to circumscribe that idea: I intended to have a view of the “dimensional capsules” (If I may use this just-created term) within which infinity may exist. Let me elucidate.

It is correct to state that there is infinity even between numbers: e.g: between 0 and 1 you will have an infinity of possible sub-numbers, or fractions of numbers –

0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3…0.9, 0.91, 0.92, 0.93, 0.9999999999999999→→Infinity→→1

And it is correct to state that between each pair of sub-numbers there is an infinity of fractions, and this applies also to such fractions. . .

But the none-existence of conceptualized individual digits beyond the digit “9” suggests to me that the infinite sequence set out above will always play it self out within the numerical sequence 1 – 9. This is what I mean by “dimensional capsules” And this is why it seems to me that there are 9 Dimensions. But in stating this, I readily concede that this is what is known to us, we mere humans, and lord knows what other configurations could open up, or be conceivable in another dimension or realm. Nevertheless we can only work and reason things from what we have apprehended.

The idea of a 10th Dimension for me is really an adventure into the zero dimension –

                          0 ---1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 ---9 →→→→ 0

But there is something very interesting about that very concept which leads us again to the concept of God.

Recall what we said about nothingness. That it is itself something. It is in reality the oneness of infinity. It is the singularity, which I call God.

If this holds true, then the adventure into a tenth dimension would mean an adventure into nothingness, and therefore, an adventure back to the singularity, and because that singularity is infinite in its particular (zero) nature, then at that point anything at all is possible. You hinted at this earlier when you said that with numerics magic can happen.

Thus it seems to me a credible line of argument to state –

10th Dimension = 0 = Singularity = 1 = God.

(This is how I earlier inferred “somethingness” existing from “nothingness”)

And within this, we can rationally state that God exists outside of all dimensions (1 – 9) and also we can even infer the attribute of omnipotence therefrom.

Someone on Answers.com put it in these words –
“If you are in, or aware, of the tenth dimension, this means that you are able to place yourself in any realm of possibility (and impossibility) that you can imagine yourself in. Essentially, you can change the entirety of the world around you to the exact specifications you see fit. The Tenth Dimension is the sum of all possible universes that have the same initial conditions as ours, and the sum of all possible and impossible universes with different initial conditions as ours. Basically if you can interact or are in the tenth dimension,  there is nothing that can't be done,  anything can be done.”

This is nothing short of omnipotence, the standpoint from which all dimensions can be controlled, and that I call. . . God.

I don’t want to get all muddled up, so maybe I can summarize my thoughts this way –
Nine dimensions exist. (1 – 9). Beyond this, we have Zero – which is outside existential dimensions, and by its nature is itself singular and thus God.

viaro:
Please forgive me, Deep Sight, but I couldn't resist. Numbers are not exactly my thing, but my eyes light up any time I see 'em in such an inviting array.

So, let me make a small observation.

In terms of abstract quantification, yes. . maybe. . and no. But I choose to follow your ink and answer yes. Which was why I hinted earlier that your postulations would satisfy my initial queries in terms of your contexts.

But this was what I wanted to draw out:

Continuous infinity by that factoring would point back to singularity of oneness - in which case you score a double when you stated in post #8 that "Thus nothingness does not come into the equation at all". As long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that.

(Oh dear me, where are those smart heads that bullied me in class with Lie Algebra?!?   )

No, Lie Algebra does not mean the mathematician was 'lying'. Rather, he was trying to work out a vector space with a specific kind of binary operation on it. That's all I should say there and shut up!

Moving on now, once anyone steps outside the vector space (which for you defines an infinity where the factoring of zero does not come into play at present), then the whole theorem collapses. Please note: I'm talking in terms of a vector space that includes '0' within its abstraction, not one within the domain of your factoring of singularity. The reason why I point out this is just to show that once a zero is introduced, the singularity theorem for infinity collapses into a black hole.

Am I making sense so far? If so, read on:

Now, if the pyramid number factoring remains within an abstract quantifying clearly defined as in yours, the theorem stands 100% every single time. But here is the difficulty: the moment you step outside that defined domain, a black hole occurs faster than twice the speed of light! This can be simply tested by a Lie Algebra (pronounced 'Lee Algebra'). We use the Lie Algebra to test domains, and here's a test for the undefined domain that includes zeros -

        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  x  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =

                 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9[b]0[/b] 1 2 3 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Please note carefully:

(a) I increased the digits of singularity to 12 (pls count them) -

(b) counting above 9 digits of singularity immediately introduces a 'black hole' - '0'

(c) that 'black hole' shows a double '0' within a close perimeter

(d) the define pyramid result would introduce "mirrors"

(e) these mirrors are such that a single digit appears at least four times (that digit is '2')

(f) notice in all the results of the pyramid, 8 appears only once!

(g) guess what? 8 is the new singularity, not 1.


Now, please leave all my useless rants behind - they are useless only in terms of the fact that using the Lie Algebra to test your postulations simply does not hold any grounds. Why? Because you already defined your parameters in post #8 when you stated that "nothingness does not come into the equation at all".

I only tested the pyramid for singularity of oneness outside your domain to show what I stated earlier:

Okay, I couldn't resist playing with numbers. Forgive me. But ride on, Deep Sight - I'm enjoying your domain.

Viaro –

Reading this post of yours was better than sex!

Man, you are really truly on the da level! Where have you been all this while? ? ?

I hereby confer you with the Honour GCNL (Grand Commander of the Order of Naira Land)!

Now to business. Your post for me did two things. It confirmed clearly some of the postulations above, but more importantly, it gave illumination on at least one cardinal truth which I will like to introduce here.

The reason why I point out this is just to show that once a zero is introduced, the singularity theorem for infinity collapses into a black hole.

Now this affirms the point – Zero cannot exist, both by definition and implication.

By Definition, it does not exist because Zero = nothingness.

By Implication, it cannot exist, because, (I don’t know if you realized this) if it exists, then NOTHING will exist at all, and all existent things will instantly zero out to nothingness.

To expatiate, somebody (Duduspace, I believe) once pointed out to me that within an eternity of endless time, anything that can happen will happen. He used that as justification for thinking that the world could arise by chance or spontaneously, within an eternity of endless time. That was a fair point, but what he missed was this: within such an eternity, zero is also something that could happen, and the minute it happens, all existence is dead forever, because zero is absolute nothingness.

This affirms your point above that the singularity collapses into a black hole upon the advent of “Zero”

It is for this reason that it is most manifest, that, as I earlier stated, zero has no place at all within the infinity axis, because it refers to nothingness! It quite simply does not even exist!

And with that we must return firmly to the singularity [1] the oneness of infinity. . .

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  x  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =

                 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9[b]0[/b] 1 2 3 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Now this is the interesting part of your post, sir.

And I said that it introduced an illumination for me.

That illumination is this: within the context of the infinity axis, it must be that in terms of dimensions, possibly only 9 dimensions exist. Because going beyond this would introduce a zero, and lead to the annihilation of existence, and is accordingly not possible, because existence is.

I am all the more certain that this is a correct postulation as it strikes me now – why is it that there is no primary number after the primary number 9? What comes after it is . . . yes – Zero! Annihilation – Non-Existence!

Given this, I take away from this thread the rich illumination that there are 9 dimensions to existence and infinity.

Viaro. . .  we are onto something here. . .

(c) that 'black hole' shows a double '0' within a close perimeter

(d) the define pyramid result would introduce "mirrors"

(e) these mirrors are such that a single digit appears at least four times (that digit is '2')

(f) notice in all the results of the pyramid, 8 appears only once!

(g) guess what? 8 is the new singularity, not 1.

Could such a double zero within a close perimeter such as this be the secret of transiting between dimensions?. . .  Just a thought. . .

Could the quadruple appearance of the figure 2 be a replication of the principle of duality. . . again, just a thought. . .

And no – look again, 8 does not appear only once.

Mazaje how did you do the thing with the moving photo of the skull, or did you get it online?

Krayola:
haha. aight.

Let's pretend everything in that post is accurate and true. How does that God = Transcendent creator.

^^^ Because everything is spawned from that Singularity, which i call God, thus, everything is spawned by God.

I am done with this proof, it is conclusive, and Tudor has deliberately run away finding no awnswers to this proof.

I now move speedily to the next proof.

I am sure you are all very familiar with this pyramid (BELOW)

1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111=123456789 87654321

Abstract quantities by the very nature of co-existing multiply mathematically to infinity. Thus it is no coincidence that this pyramid matches the infinity axis which i drew up in the first post. This backs up the assertion that [1] (a singularity or oneness of infinity) = God, and spawns contnuous infinity therefrom, in terms of abstract quantification.

GBAM.