₦airaland Forum

Jagunlabi - by "rude shock" i simply meant that he would be very very surprised to discover that the spiritual is as real, or more real, than the physical.

I don't see how that has anything to do with fear.

jagunlabi:
Science(atleast physics) has gone beyond the billiard ball mechanics(material physics) and into the realm of energy(energetic physics) since the discovery of the quantum field.This can no longer be denied anymore by materialists today.

What in hell does this have to do with anything??

@ Poster - Obviously you never went to university or parties in Nigeria, otherwise you would know there is no greater gathering of feminine quality anywhere in the world than in Lagos.

(And i've been to all the hot-spots - Europe, Latin America and East Africa)

_{Besides, those pics look like a bunch of soulless Juveniles.}

Huxley, i urge you to recognise the spiritual within you, and live in accordance with its promptings. Otherwise a rude shock may await you at the moment of death when you recognise the greatness of creation after your immaterial part severs itself from the gross matter which is your physical body.

Wow, i have read the whole of this thread and i must say its a brilliant debate.

Very interesting, the suggestions on Hitler's real role in History.

Pastor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where have you beeeeen

^^^ Let KAG come and add his own, before we proceed.

But please try to put the word boundless in the context of SPACE, and you will see that there is nowhere (yes even outside the universe) where space does not exist, as it is somthing that cannot not be. Conceptualize and imagine it aright.

But before KAG returns with his gymnastics, let me pose this question to help our understanding -

Is Space something or is it nothingness.

Somethingness - it is a material within which we, and the universe, exist.

Nothingness - It is empty nothingness - space - and things happen within the nothingness.

KAG -

You are being somewhat dishonest here. In my village, it would be said that you are speaking from both sides of your mouth.

You were happy to define space as being boundless. When i pointed out that boundlessness connotes the infinity which i mentioned, you performed some interesting gymnastics in stating that "boundless" does not connote "infinity".

Pray tell, would you be so kind as to specify the differences between those words as apply to space? Specifically, explain how space can be boundless and not infinite. It would be interesting to watch you attempt to wriggle out of this one.

And oh, please be specific in your answer - your last attempt was vague and very escapist, you know that for sure.

What shocks me is your failure to appreciate the inherent meaning of the word boundless, which was the very word contained in the definition of space that you sourced. Boundless, for the avoidance of doubt, means without bounds - thus implying endless space.

Given this, what problem could you have with my assertion that space is infinite.

And more importantly - how in heaven can you describe space as boundless but not infinite.

Please help me out. I am confused.

Krayola -

Does it not occur to you that -

1. The Big Bang was tabled as an explosion. It is no fault of the skeptic if he seizes on that word, because that is the word the originators of the theory used. The very words "Big Bang" connote an explosion, not a quiet, calm "movement outwards."

2. Does it not occur to you that an "Expansion" would even more likely require a supernatural (read: extra-natural) cause, as an explosion can easily be rationalized as the result of extreme energy density (which is what the originators of the theory supposed).

huxley:
The gap in the fossil record does not present a serious challenge to evolution nowadays. There will always be gaps because only a very very small fraction of animals fossilise, less than 0.05%.

I did not say it presents a challenge to evolution, i said it suggests that there may be more to the process than science alone.

huxley:
If you insist on saying that it could be a guided process, then I suggest your defintion of the word "guided" has no meaning. I would accept the proposition that god started it all off and retire from the scene, never to be involved again - but not guided.

Of course he could have retired, having set in place all the laws of nature that would "guide" the process. Really no difference between six and half a dozen, don't you think?

Exactly. So i take it you recant your allegations that the Prophet was ignorant.

Forget the bozos who take everything literally, the bible is a heavily symbolic book, although it contains alot of real History.

Huxley - No i dont beleve that evolution is false.

But there are still many grave and serious gaps in the fossil record which suggest to my mind that there is something more that we are missing.

huxley:
If it is a guided process, why are there so many dead-ends; why so many extinction; why so many bad designs?

Come on, you know better than this: natural selection is the answer to this question, i see no reason why that is not still "a guided process".

huxley:
Scientific theories are not like your metaphsysical dogma whose validity is based on the teachings of the progenitor.

Point of correction: I have no "dogma", and my perspective does not come from the teachings of any progenitor, but is grounded in the cosmological argument and my personal expatiation of its essentials based on a study and observation of the Universe.

huxley:
Can you explain to me what brand of creationism you mean?

ANY brand. Is it not conceivable that a deity could have put in motion the evolutionary process and guided it towards a purpose?

Because even Darwin had to admit that the something like the human eye defies explanation.

KAG:
This is adequate: "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space)

.

Very good. Note the word i highlighted above: "Boundless."

So you accept, as i earlier stated, that Space is infinite, and cannot be circumscribed by reference to the Big Bang only?

Does that shed some perspective on what the universe is expanding into?

Note the second bit: "three dimensional extent in which objects and events occur."

Could the Big Bang not be one such event that occured in space.?

Huxley -

Explain why the theories of evolution and creation must be mutually exclusive.

@ Rich John -

It sounds very "intelligent" to you when somebody reads about God speaking from a Cloud of Thunder, and concludes that the prophet was worshipping Thunder?

It sounds very clever to you that somebody mentions "the mornin star" as evidence that the Prophets were ignorant - despite the fact that up till this day in 2009, Venus is still called the Morning Star metaphorically?

It sounds very clever to you when somebody reads a didactic poem and picks out words such as "the storehouses of snow" to conclude that the Prophet was referring to a warehouse in Iyana-Ipaja? ? ?

I can only wonder at your literary and academic background.

^^^ Explain these if you can:

"And the Lord God said: Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever/ Therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. . . so he drove out the man. . . and placed cherubims and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the TREE of Life. . .(Genesis 3: 22 - 24).

Noetic, reflect on this closely. Does it seem to you that this was an earthly event?

Does this have traces of a spiritual happening in the Divine Realm. . . from where man was cast out, to come here to "till the ground". . . and a Cherubim placed, with a sword, to guard the Tree of Life. . .?

What do you think that "Tree" is, and does it seem to you that it can be placed on Earth. . . ? Because the account shows that even God and other heveanly beings may have obtained their "eternal nature" from it? ? ?

Noetic, read that whole account again very very very carefully.

@ Wirinet! Sorry, but i am mostly dissapointed by your interpretations. Particularly with respect to your failure to distinguish metaphors from literal descriptions.

mazaje:
Now the story did not claim it was written by Job, but it was written about Job by another person. So what was written was the unknown author's perspective and not Job's. I wander why Christians always associate authorship with the characters of a story.

Authourship is actually not important. What is cardinal is what is reported in the text. Especially since you MOGANALA (MOTLEY GANG OF NAIRALAND ATHEISTS) seek to disparage the bible as set out. Thus, we read what is written therein, and what statements are ascribed to Job regardless of the authours. Who doesn't know that the First five books of the bible were only ascribed to Moses, same with the Gospels.

mazaje:
So according to the author of Job, god talks to him through storms (thunder i guess). Job thought thunder was a god voice talking to certain people.

Good grief, this is sooo lame! How would you expect God to talk to a prophet. . . perhaps bring out a mat and sit beside him in a hut and give him tales by moonlight? ? ? ? Give me a break!

mazaje:
The author of Job thought the earth was built the way you build a house, complete with foundation footings and cornerstone.

You have never read poetry in your life before? You don't know what metaphors are? Get real man!

If you must know the book of Job is a poetic work, and such works are replete with metaphors.

This is from Wiki -
quote author= link=topic=327345.msg4653145#msg4653145 date=1254484399]
[[The Book of Job (Hebrew: אִּיּיּיֹוב) is one of the books of the Hebrew Bible. It relates the story of Job, his trials at the hands of Satan, his theological discussions with friends on the origins and nature of his suffering, and finally a response from God. The Book itself comprises a didactic poem set in a prose framing device and has been called "the most profound and literary work of the entire Old Testament".

[/quote].

Note the highlighted portion in the quote above and please do not dissapoint me in your appreciation of literature! The thing was a didactic poem for God's sake!

mazaje:
The morning stars were the planet Venus and Mercury by ancient Greek thought, because these stars (planets) were sometimes visible just before dawn, at other times they are visible just before dusk, then they are known as evening star.

CHRIST! You amaze me! Up till this very day, Venus is still metaphorically called "the morning star" because of its bright appearance in the sky! So what? ? ? ?

[quote author=mazaje link=topic=327345.msg4653145#msg4653145 date=1254484399]Snow and hail having storehouses? That means Job has no idea where snow or hail comes from

Aside from the obvious poetic use, you should be aware that the Earth's water cycle stashes away vasy quantities of ice-water within the atmosphere. Are those not "Storehouses"? Ok, sorry, you expect the earth's water cycle to function through man made pipes. . .? ? ?

Overall, Wiriniet, i score your response very poor. Go and read the Book of Job again, and although i would have urged you to read it with spiritual insight, i must say that since you deny spirituality, at least read it like a man who understands literature and metaphors!

mazaje:
Please Deep Site convert to Christianity so we can understand your positions, stop tittering on the border.

Not a chance, i cannot accept bizzare dogma such as the trinity, redemption through the crucifixion etc.

mazaje:
Wirinet you just nailed it. . . .

Nailed what? As you can see from the above, it was a response without much depth of understanding of literature. You just dey do follow-follow. . .?

^^^ Physics, physics, physics. . .

I see we are going to have to take it slow. . .

There are grave and fundamental gaps in what you have laid out, but i guess if you are genuinely open-minded, as you have said you are, we will address them as we go along.

Look, before i respond in toto to the issues you raised. . .

Please clear these up for me; it would help our further discourse, cos i see we are on wildly divergent wavelengths. . .

1. What do you think of the idea of a MULTIVERSE (other universes)

2. What do you think of the supposition that our universe is merely one within THE SAME INFINITE SPACE AND TIME of a Multiverse, much as galaxies within this universe are within the same space and time.

3. Would the color "Yellow" change its hue, if we named it "Black"?

4. Would you suggest to me that there was no determinate number of moons around Jupiter, until humans came along and ascribed a figure in their own language?

wirinet:
I share the same view with mazaje, if you believe in the Biblical God, why not proclaim your self a Christian?, why the semantics of calling yourself a deist.  So that at least we will know your point of view when discussing with you.

I am disappointed at your reference to biblical verses quoted by you refering to the earth suspended in nothing and the circle of the earth. If such statements was coming from Mr Olaadegun or Davidylan i would have understood but from you that claims to have sufficient knowledge of astronomy, it is a shame.

If you job fully instead of pick and chose as employed by Christians, you will see that he got so many things wrong. But you people (Christians) would only highlight verses that have the slightest correlation with scientific facts of today.

The so many absurd things of the bible would not be mentioned by you, like the sun standing still for three days, and so many others.

I hope you realise you have neither addressed what i rasied nor made any point.

Why the hell are people so black and white? ? ? ? ?

Once somebody sees somethings of value and interest in a compound book such as the bible, such a person must be a fire-breathing-born-again christian-in-disguise? ? ? ? ? Good grief! ! !

I have learnt something in life: nothing is ever as bad as people claim it to be. And nothing is ever as good as people claim it to be.

Things are not black and white!

Thus, there are illogicalities in the Bible just as surely as there are things to wonder at. As well as useful bits of history.

The persons (like you atheist lot) who seek to state that there is nothing worthwhile in the bible or quoran are just as off-the-mark as the persons who seek to state that there is nothing wrong in these books!

Get it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

@ KAG -

I'm back.

Please to facilitate our discourse, can you assist with a clear definition of this word as you understand it:

"Space".

P.s. I normally do not ask for definitions, i prefer to offer them myself, or assume an understanding, but in this case, we will have to start from the most basic conceptualizations, given the vast differences in our views.

Cheers.

[quote author=tpia. link=topic=330967.msg4648885#msg4648885 date=1254427022]You're pointing at pre-Isrealite origins of Judaic monotheism, right?[/quote]No! ! !

I am pointing at pre-Israelite origins of the word - "Yahweh"! I am stating that that name belonged to some god being worshipped already by surrounding tribes!

God did not reveal HIS name to Noah. He supposedly revealed it to Moses. Thus although you correctly state Noah to be Monotheistic, this is neither here nor there. Because my concern is that a name emerging from the pagan tribes around Israel, was eventuality ascribed to the Israelite God. Does it seem to you a co-incidence that Moses had spent some time with some of those tribes, and even took his wife from their midst? Does it seem to you a co-incidence that the name he[i] hears[/i] from God, as the name of the God of Abraham (& Noah, et all) turns out to be a name well known and well used as the name of a god within the tribe that Moses had spent some time with?

Think!

And at all events remember the core argument: If It were proved to you today that the word "Yahweh" belonged to an ancient pagan deity, would that change the fact that you have always conceived yourself as worshipping ALMIGHTY GOD?

This, for the umpteenth time, is directed AT the allegations regarding the source of the word "Allah"

Point is: DOES IT MATTER? ? ?

Mantraa & Mazaje -

I am astounded that you both have failed to see the major loophole in your reference to other ancient people:

Those people were scientists, astronomers and physicists.

What was Job, that he should have such knowledge?

What was Isaiah?

And most importantly the Greek Civilization was far down the line after the Hebrew Texts had been written!

You both astound me.

Mazaje: Learn: A rejection of religion (which is my path) does not necessarily amount to a rejection of God, or Spirituality. The Deistic worldview focuses on the existence of a Supreme Being who created the world, but there are many many different types of, variations, and views within Deism.

noetic15:
considering your antecedents . . . , the quality of this post was rather poor and pathetic.

Abeg, deal with the reasoning and dont worry about my antecedents, Jare:

Here it is again:

However, i ask you: the established monotheistic religions are Christianity, Judaism and Islam. What are the chances that the "Yahweh"worshipped by the tribes on the arabic peninsula was the monotheistic creator. . . very unlikely. Especially as the bible explicitly states that the tribes around Israel were all heathen and pagan. (Hence the special nature of Israel, and the injunctions by god to wipe out some of these peoples).

No?

Tpia:
I asked you what was the name of the God Noah worshipped, who told him to build an ark.

and remember, Rachel, Jacob's wife took her household gods with her after she married. Showing a clear distinction between her own god and the God her husband's family worshipped.

Please note that this is not relevant because the issue concerns ascribing names. Thus if "Yahweh" was ascribed to the God of Abraham, Noahm etc, then this should not be a problem, any more than "Allah" being ascribed to that same God!

Get it?  ? ?

[quote author=tpia. link=topic=330967.msg4644723#msg4644723 date=1254370878]lets beg your question.

Something being ancient doesnt automatically mean its pagan.

Paganism involves the worship of idols, right?

I hope you see where the fault is with your analogy.

I asked you what was the name of the God Noah worshipped, who told him to build an ark.

and remember, Rachel, Jacob's wife took her household gods with her after she married. Showing a clear distinction between her own god and the God her husband's family worshipped.

btw , I thought you said you went clubbing somewhere- shouldnt you be easing off right now. Surprised to know you're male.

dont know why I keep assuming some males are female on this forum.[/quote]Hi there! I am only just recovering from the bedmatics of this morning. . . how am i going to overcome my sex addiction. . . Damn. . .

Now back to the issues -

You are right: that a god is ancient does not mean it is pagan.

However, i ask you: the established monotheistic religions are Christianity, Judaism and Islam. What are the chances that the "Yahweh"worshipped by the tribes on the arabic peninsula was the monotheistic creator. . . very unlikely. Especially as the bible explicitly states that the tribes around Israel were all heathen and pagan. (Hence the special nature of Israel, and the injunctions by god to wipe out some of these peoples).

No?

Krayola:
I'm no scientist, but from the little that I think i know, the big bang does not show that the universe necessarily began to exist. It seems u are using out-dated scientific models.

IF THERE IS ONE THING that the Big Bang does prove, it is that the universe began to exist at the happening of the bang. This is so inherently obvious, i am mildly surprised that you have raised it. What is a bang, if not a happening at which something begins to expand. So i am certain you should accept that the universe began with the big bang.

Krayola:
I also totally disagree that numbers exist on their own. . .IMO  they are a creation of the human mind

Let me ask you one question. Humanity as you well know arrived on the Earth very very recently in cosmological terms. The earth has been around for billions of years prior to our arrival.

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 number in our human words. Hope you are clear on this.

For the rest of the points you raised, i think the clearest and best approach is to address the issue of Causation. Tudor had already accepted that there must be a First Cause. And i would urge you to examine closely what you really mean by asserting that there is no cause.

If you absorb the fact i made clear here: that the Big Bang, if it proves nothing else, proves that the Universe BEGAN when that bang happened. Thus if it began, it necessarily follows that something somehow triggered that event. Can you really conceive anything finite that can begin to happen, without a trigger of one sort or the other. Please see if you can imagine even one such thing. I am certain you cannot.

Therefore, we must put aside all the other points, and you should rationally accept that the universe was caused. If you accept this, (which you rationally must be impelled to), then we are on course.

Krayola/ Tudor -

I will attempt to take your concerns at once.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=331016.msg4646127#msg4646127 date=1254395424]You people know quite well scientists believe the universe as we know it was "caused to happen" i.e a causative factor for the sequence of events that led to this universe.[/quote]I am most grateful for the the above. Finally, we no longer need to quibble about causation. You accept that there was a causative factor, great!

Thus the task only is to describe that Causative factor, and see what key attributes can be ascribed to it.

Very good! Let's proceed.

Some direct and indisputable attributes that we can infer from the fact of "Causation" are -

   1. The Cause was immaterial - because if it brought all matter into existence, then logically it could not be matter itself.

   2. The Cause was powerful - because as someone rightly stated, "the big bang was the mother of all explosions." Thus the cause of such a bang must be very powerful indeed.

   3. The Cause was timeless - because to bring time into existence, it must stand outside time.

I am leaving it this simple for now so we can crystalize the issues and see what is relevant to a proper expatiation of the cosmological argument and what is not relevant.

I am sure that what is set out above is very simple, very clear and very lucid. I am also sure that it is rationaly incontestible.

To recap: We are agreed on a cause, and also on the three attributes above, which are rationally incontestible.

Ay Tudor, Ay Krayola?

Ay, Banom? _{(*still somewhere far behind struggling with definitions. . .*)}

banom:
This is the part of the whole debate that got me irritated , You are yet to define God and you have attributed the universe to him as the creator,

as i asked you before, cant some one be a God over something he did not create, ? and can't a person create something without being God a over,

What if the universe evolved from a non living thing ? does that non living thing qualify as God ?

Finally why did you have to modify the thread title when you saw your self on the loosing side ?

It seems to me that certain persons are yet to get past the definition stage. Banom in particular seems to be struggling with this. I should therefore exhaustively tackle this before proceeding.

Let's take an example - i state: "Ghosts do not exist." To make this statement, i would need to have beforehand an idea as to what the idea - "Ghosts" refers to. Otherwise i could not possibly state: "Ghosts do not exist." I need to know beforehand, that the word "Ghost" refers to a disembodied being, and then i can state: "I do not believe that disembodied beings can exist outside a physical body, and accordingly i do not believe that Ghosts exist."

Banom, you appear to be making the error of assuming that the mere definition of the word, amounts to a conclusion that the God i believe in, EXISTS AND is the Creator. This would be akin to assuming that defining the word "Ghost" as a disembodied being amounts to confirming that such beings exist. That is wrong.

The definition only sets out the Idea. We can then proceed to debate if that idea exists as conceived.

Banom, everybody seems to have gotten this except you, and you can see the others are going ahead to make more advanced arguments already, attacking the core cosmological dessertation. Normally i should be focusing on that, and not on a trivial refusal to grasp basic definitions, but i have bothered to write this, just to make you understand that the definition of God as Creator, is not a confirmation that God exists - it simply is a statement of the idea of what people have in mind when they use the word "God."

It is clear that for all people of the world, the word "God" evokes the idea of a "Creator" who made all things. We can now debate as to whether such a "CREATOR" exists or not.

I am, going forward, going to be addressing the core arguments only, and not your unfounded and mis-guided worries on definitions.

Has it occured to you that the "Fall of Man" may refer to Mankind's departure from the spiritual realm towards the world of matter, for the purpose of experiencing and growing?

Has it occured to you that "the garden of Eden" may refer to a spiritual home of mankind which was never on this earth? And that the "Fall" may refer to the leaving of that home to come to this world?

Do these two little teasers make you see that there are many suppositions that you have not even yet considered?

And that this subject is deeper than mere heckling?

^^^ There we go, darling you! Told you we had no dispute:

Point is just this:

IF you discovered that "Yahweh" was an ancient semitic pagan god, would that mean that all these years you have been worshipping that pagan god?

In my opinion, NO - BECAUSE what you had in mind was the ultimate creator of the universe, and not an idol.

That's why i say its what you have in mind thats important, and not the ancient names.

That's why i'm insisting we gotta leave the muslims alone, regardless of what ALLAH means.

(Although there is proof that it is simply the Arabic word for God)

Your responses are honest and good, though i think its like you have not grasped what i am trying to communicate, and that is my fault, not yours. I have just come back from the club with my scandalous-as-ever-girlfriend, and men, this is no time to respond. I will hit you in the morning.

Nice one Krayola. Appreciate your honesty and open-mindedness. Cheers.

@ Kag - i'm sleepy now, will return to expatiate tomorrow.

I am very interested in this discourse.

Cheers.