₦airaland Forum

Here is the argument.

1. Definition: By God, we mean that the universe was created by an entity. That entity is what we refer as God. Godship is defined as being the First Cause, Prime Mover, and maker of all existence.

Argument

1. The Universe is not eternal in the past: the Big Bang shows that it began at a point.

2. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

3. The Universe is something, and it began to exist at a point.

4. The Universe therefore had a Cause. The Cause of all existence, is something that itself exists of itself (e.g: numbers or infinity) without requiring anything else to exist, since all that exists, are effects of an ultimate cause.

5. "Creator" is the equivalent of the term - "Causative Factor" - or "that which makes something happen". This seals the argument on creation, as the Cause = the Creator (Or "First Mover."

5. The Cause (Creator) of the universe could not bequeath features that it does not have itself. (This is obvious within sciences such as genetics).

6. Every feature inherent in the Universe (including Life, Intelligence, and Power AND EVERY OTHER FEATURE) is therefore also contained within the Cause (Creator).

7. Therefore, the Cause (Creator) of the Universe, is Living, Intelligent, Powerful. . . and every other thing, positive or negative, within the Universe.

8. . . . . . . . The composite Image is complete.

Please identify the illogical gaps, and i will address them.

I acknowledge that there may be still some clatifications to make.

^^^^ @ KAG - What do you say to the following suggestions -

1. That the time you refer to as being created by the Big Bang simply refers to measurable time as per the finite human mind? And not the totality of time itself, which is infinite, and cannot cease to be.

2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big bang is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "bang" that occurs is a bang within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the bang that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

3. Want to change your understanding of time? Uncle Einstein was only human you know, and yes, i know the enormity of the scientific thinking that i am up against.

You have still not been able to answer this question:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Because so long as the universe is able to expand, then there must be a space for it to expand into, no?

Thus that space was already there before the big bang, no?

Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.

I am bold enough.

Are you.

KAG:
Time is in fact tangible

Really? I hope you know the definition of the word "Tangible". Because it means something that you can touch. Can you touch time?

You went further to state that time is contingent. Do you think that time is something that can fail to be in existence at any point? What really do you understand by the word "time"?

If i might ask you a question. If you belive that the Big Bang created Time, you of course also belive that it created space.

Therefore:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Into what has it been expanding all this while?

Of course it has been expanding into empty already existent space, because space, like time, is a non-contingent and infinite quantity.

GBAM!

KAG:
What letter comes before the letter "A" in the English alphabet?

GBAM Again!!!

Finite thinking. Limiting yourself based on language formulas, good grief!

What about numbers?

What comes before zero in numerics?

Yes. . . -1, -2, -3, up to infinity. . . never ending sequence. . .

Get it? ? ?

Krayola:
haha.

My honest assessment is that most atheist are worried that someone is going to make an argument that they can not refute. i think this deadlock over definitions is unnecessary.

I think that works. . .

Abeg deep sight, no vex. if u're still interested i wont fight over words. . .unless absolutely necessary. But I won't let u force things down my throat. Beautiful wings and "order in the universe" and stuff like that won't do it unless u make really sound arguments, that do not appeal to "intuition" or some other spiritual shit that means nothing to me.

Abeg, better person, Krayola, what's up?

You see, the guy think say i get energy for small small game. I no get that kin time.

This is an apple. Define Apple. It is a fruit. Define fruit. Fruits are edible bulbous productions of trees. Define Trees. Trees are plants with firm stems that grow from the ground. Define ground. The ground is the surface of the earth. Define Earth. . .

Who in the hell is going to play such a stupid kindergarten game, when what one is interested in is something as advanced as the source of all existence?

As Prizm once asked: What serious discussion can be held, when the discussants deliberately pretend to not know the definitions of the most basic things, simply in order to frustrate the conversation. Imagine some one asking me to define "Existence." Of course it is a state of being as opposed to not being. That's the same way some one asked me to define 'nothingness." As though any serious person can claim not to have an idea as to the word "nothingness" and what it connotes.

Can any serious minded person claim not to know the meanings of these words:

banom:
What is creation,?
What is creator ?
What is existence ?
What is supernatural ?

This is what i hate: and i must admit i was very irritated about it, because i actually thought the dude was serious in the beginning.

No wahala, sha, i am always interested in discussing with you because u get serious mind.

For you, i will re-enter and present the Cosmological Argument as i see it.

No, thanks, i can't participate in this.

We said, Define God, before we proceed. I gave him a definition. He's not happy with the definition. I said - ok, propose a definition, so we can proceed. He won't propose one. I even told him i would be happy for us to use a dictionary definition.

Look, i don't have the time for games, and that's what this is about for Banom.

I'm out. Good night.

KAG:
Time was started by the big bang and may have even began after the inflation of space.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing this. Time is an intangible, non-contingent and eternal entity. It cannot be created by an explosion of anything or any description.

It's reference point in fact cannot be this universe and the big bang, - what if there are other universes out there? Would we state that time does not exist there? ? ?

What was there before the big bang? Metaphorically speaking in human terms - one second before the Big bang was still a point in time, no?

It looks like we will have to abandon this thread, i wanted a serious discourse and not games.

We have not even been able to lay out the Fundamentals of the Cosmological Argument and rationalize those fundamentals because we are stalemated on defining the word "God"!

Sorry Banom, i'm out.

Peace.

What is Kadashada, never heard of that before. Please hope this is not a game

^^^^ Brilliant! Just cant see why a man would be sent to hell for living a life like that!

GBAM!

banom:
You are fooling yourself,You have not defined,God and Supernatural, and you want me to agree that your undefined God created all that was created, how ?

^^^^ No, maybe you are misunderstanding me.

I am trying to set the tone for the conversation.

The argument is "Does God exist?"

To argue constructively, we've got to know what the word "God" means.

My understanding of that word is "Creator".

But if you have a better understanding of the word, please proffer it, and maybe we can use that understanding.

If not, then maybe we cant even discuss at all, since we cannot agree on the definition of the word "God" to start with.

Or maybe we can use an independent source to define it, such as a dictionary.

Tell me what you think.

Deep Sight:
Banom, so that we do not get into a whirlpool of un-ending definitions, i will leave out the word supernatural.

Let us simply Define God as "That which created all that exists."

Happy now?

Chrisbenogor:
Consciously?

^^^ Great question. But really and truly, i am not sure it makes a difference. If God takes a conscious decision to create, that's fine. He would be no less God, if his intrinsic nature spawns creation. That would only confirm his nature as a creator. What we need to establish is if there is such an entity at all, which is responsible for the creation of all that exists.

The Creator of all the exists. The Uncaused Cause and Prime Mover.

The oneness of infinity.

Banom, so that we do not get into a whirlpool of un-ending definitions, i will leave out the word supernatural.

Let us simply Define God as "That which created all that exists."

Happy now?

banom:
Good this is the part i wanted us to specify before we proceed,

1, I want you to define Existence [/b]for me.

2, I want you To Define God for me,

Finally i agree with your post above that our discussion is not about ,heaven,hell, wisdom, etc, but i disagree with the definition of God above as Creator,

A person can be a God over some thing without necessary creating it,
The other way  round, a person can create something without being a God over it,

Let's try to make it simple, and not get over-complicated or lost in definitions.

I think it is clear within all religions and myths that the primary function ascribed to God is the fact of his being responsible for Creation. The Bible opens with the account of God creating the world. The Quoran also states that God created all things. Indeed the fact of his being "the creator" has been the source of his supposed authourity over all things within the context of religion. I do not think there is any attribute ascribed to God that is more cardinal that the [b]creative attribute, and this should form the plank for discussion.

Secondly, even outside the religious context, the whole purport of existential discussion centres around the question of existence: namely - how did all that exists come into existence/ or - how did the world start/ or what is the origin of all that we see. Thus, inherently, any discussion about the existence of God must have as its cardinal focus the cosmological question of how things came to exist. For this reason, we must focus on the key attribute of God, namely that he is "The Creator."

That is the best definition we can work with, - a Supernatural Entity that Created all that exists.

Please agree with this, as i think its the only rational way to define him for this discussion.

On your question as to what "existence" is, i will say two things -

 1. To exist means "to be". Something that is, in reality.

 2. Please do not make me fearful that you are going to drag me into a whirlwind of un-ending definitions. . . because it is quite clear what it is to say that something exists or does not exist. . .

So are we agreed on the definition of God as "A supernatural Entity that created all that exists"?

^^^ No, no, no, not at all, I just want peeps to learn to be fair and balanced.

Like i said, imo, the origin of these names doesnt even matter, its what the user has in mind as almighty God that matters.

But peeps need to know that they can't assume the names of the Bible God to be the only true refernce to the Creator. I am certain that Chineke and Olodumare are true refernces to the creator.

^^^ That is not true. There are many different schools of Deism. Many regard worship as irrelevant, but others do worship. There was even once, i think, a "Church of Deism" or something like that which i think morphed into Unitarianism or something like that.

There is even christian deism. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Deism

First, let us make clear that God, is herein defined as "Creator."

The argument is not about religion, heaven, hell, the mercy or goodness of God, his wisdom or fairness, or indeed any other attributes ascribed to God by man or religion, save as the Creator.

Banom is this agreed?

^^^ Yes o, i worship God and i do pray. I believe there is a spiritual aspect to life. But i cant find satisfaction in any formalized religion.

But that is private. It has nothing to do with principles of Deism, or the Cosmological Argument.

^^^ Cant really see that we have a dispute. . . or is there one?

banom:
Nice one,
let me devote this evening for us to argue this once and for all,but you must assure me that if you are unable to prove the existence of God to me, then you will stop any further campaign for the existence of God ?and if you win, i will denounce atheism this evening , is that a deal ?

Banom has challenged me to a duel on the Cosmological Argument.

Let's go.

Agreed! I will open a thread right now, called, The Duel: Banom takes on Deep Sight on the Existence of God.

Check it out, let's go.

[quote author=tpia. link=topic=330967.msg4642385#msg4642385 date=1254330980]Xtians are not even sure the name Yahweh did not have a pagan origin?

who are the Xtians you're referring to?

I hope you know the etymology of the word Yahweh, not minding the fact that your post proved absolutely nothing ? Copy and paste isnt the end of all enquiry. You're supposed to also analyse what you're copying and pasting.

why do you consider research into the name Allah as an attack? History is history whether you like it or not and the fact that people argue doesnt mean they're automatically wrong just because you dont like what they're saying or their mode of presentation.[/quote]Yep, i copied that from wiki, no denying - in the post i clearly stated: "Extract from wikipedia", so no stress there.

Did you really read the extract, by the way? Because it seems quite clear that the word Yahweh was in use by surrounding tribes before Uncle Moses came along.

Care to wonder what their concept of Yahweh was? Was it the God of Abraham?

Are you sure that that name was not thereafter ascribed to the God of Abraham?

So if we can research the name "Allah", lets also research the name "Yahweh"!

^^^ No, its not just for fun, some of them feel anger at dogma, some frustration at evil, etc. These are their real grounds for being Atheists.

These may be grounds to doubt the nature of God as described by religion, but not the existence of a prime mover. The existence of a prime mover is pure logic, and not even faith. In fact it's tender-garten logic!

And i did prove that prime mover - don't blame me if some people are not "Deep-Sighted" enough to follow the logic.

  1. 0 + 0 = 0, thus something cannot come out of nothing in the finite realm.

  2. Accordingly, all things which have a beginning also have a cause (law of cause and effect).

  2. The Universe had a beginning (Big Bang confirmed)

  4. The Universe therefore had a Cause.

  5. That Prime Mover/ First Cause is called God, as God is defined as Creator, and nothing more (forget religion).

What again?

Tpia, i have no problem with your reasoning.

This thread is a reaction to the mostly xtian allegations that "Allah" is not a reference to God, but to a pagan idol.

Frankly, imo, the orinigin of the names are not relevant so long as the person(s) currently using the names have God almighty in mind.

This thread simply shows that there's no point attacking the name Allah, because, xtians are not even sure that the name "Yahweh" did not have a pagan origin.

Gte it?

Extract From Wiki's History of the word "Yahweh"

Originated among the Israelites?
A more fundamental question is whether the name Yahweh originated among the Israelites or was adopted by them from some other people and speech.[87]

The biblical author of the history of the sacred institutions (P) expressly declares that the name Yahweh was unknown to the patriarchs (Exod. vi. 3), and the much older Israelite historian (E) records the first revelation of the name to Moses (Exod. iii. 13-15), apparently following a tradition according to which the Israelites had not been worshippers of Yahweh before the time of Moses, or, as he conceived it, had not worshipped the god of their fathers under that name.[citation needed]

The revelation of the name to Moses was made at a mountain sacred to Yahweh, (the mountain of God) far to the south of Canaan, in a region where the forefathers of the Israelites had never roamed, and in the territory of other tribes. Long after the settlement in Canaan this region continued to be regarded as the abode of Yahweh (Judg. v. 4; Deut. xxxiii. 2 sqq.; I Kings xix. 8 sqq. &c).

Moses is closely connected with the tribes in the vicinity of the holy mountain Mount Horeb. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses married a daughter of the priest of Midian (Exod. ii. 16 sqq.; iii. 1). It is to this mountain he led the Israelites after their deliverance from Egypt. There his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered sacrifices, at which the chief men of the Israelites were his guests. In the holy mountain the religion of Yahweh was revealed through Moses, and the Israelites pledged themselves to serve God according to its prescriptions.

It appears, therefore, that in the tradition followed by the Israelite historians, the tribes within whose pasture lands the mountain of God stood were worshipers of Yahweh before the time of Moses. The surmise that the name Yahweh belongs to their speech, rather than to that of Israel, is a significant possibility. One of these tribes was Edom, another Midian, between whose lands the mountain of God lay. The Kenites also, with whom another tradition connects Moses, seem to have been worshipers of Yahweh, but the Amalek who were great enemies of Israel were not a part of the covenant to be law abiding.

Petroglyphs evidencing that Yahweh (El, Al, Allah, Iah) was at one time reverenced by various tribes near Palestine in the Seir, the mountain chain running between Mount Horeb and Hammath, in Sinai and the Negev, have been found at Serabit el Khadim. Emanual Anasti has found several cultic places in that territory (Horeb, Sinai, Kadesh, &c.)that were sacred to the various powers of secular lord, wind, storm, water in the desert, fire and smoke that these glyphs represented. The oldest and most famous of these, the mountain of God, Mount Horeb seems to have lain in Arabia, at the juncture of the Arabah with the Gulf of Aqabah of the Red Sea at Elat. From some of these peoples and at one of these holy places, a group of Israelite tribes adopted the religion of Yahweh, the power who, by the hand of Moses, had delivered them from Egypt.[88]

The tribes of this region probably belonged to some branch of the Arabian desert Semitic stock, and accordingly, the name Yahweh has been connected with the Arabic hawa, the void (between heaven and earth), "the atmosphere, or with the verb hawa, cognate with Heb; Hawah, "sink, glide down (through space)"; and hawwa "blow (wind)". "He rides through the air, He blows" (Wellhausen), would be a fit name for a god of wind and storm. There is, however, no certain evidence that the Israelites in historical times had any consciousness of the primitive significance of the name.


So Davidylan - Stop shouting to the Muslims about a "moon god"!

Clearly if Yorubaland was near Egypt at that time the name Moses would have heard may have been "Sango"!

Aside from the argument of causation, contained in the Cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument), it escapes most atheists that there also must perforce must have been a reason for the Prime Mover, to have initiated the cause.

Frankly, its just astonishing that people could refute the Cosmological Argument because it talks about a first mover, and not necessarily "Yahweh" or "Allah".

The atheist should just admit that its Religion they have a problem with and not "God" as per a Creator.

Duality is inherent in existence.

Tell me why the Church calls Jesus of Nazareth, a 1st century Jewish Carpenter, God?

Tell me what difference there is between that and calling Guru Maharaji God?

Most of the Atheists have misdirected themselves, because the reasons they put forward mostly border on the existence of evil and religious absurdities and corruption.

Their arguments tend to go like this:

"Since the followers of Micheal-Angelo are all evil people who have twisted and misconceived ideas about art, then the paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel appeared there by themselves, nobody painted them."

OR

They argue - "What caused God?"

This is like saying - "Since we do not know the mother of Leonardo Da Vinci, then the Mona Lisa was not painted by anybody, and popped out of thin air."

OR

They argue - "Where is God? Can he be seen?"

This is like saying: "Since I cannot see Barack Obama from my balcony, then clearly he does not exist."

OR

They argue - "Must the universe have a cause? Couldn't it have always existed?"

This is just like saying: "Must i have a cause? Couldn't i have always existed?" Oh dear, since you always existed, your mama must have been hallucinating when she gave birth to you! Aside this, the Big Bang shows that the universe did not always exist. It started at a point.

What caused it to happen?

Because something did cause it to happen.

Whatever that thing is, is what the Deist calls God.

The Atheist rather says - "It needn't be the God of religion"

Duh. Who said anything about religion?

Then the mother of all their arguments:

"There is no evidence that God exists, the universe is not evidence that God exists"

Oh dear, there is no evidence that the parents of an orphan child we found in the forest ever existed. After, all, we cant see the parents, and the child is only evidence of his own existence, not evidence that there was a mother somewhere at some point in time.

Nah, don't waste your time with that lot. . .

mantraa:
Why do people keep quoting passages from the bible to prove the authenticity of god?

Can you not see that it is like someone quoting passages from a book about harry potter to prove the authenticity of harry potter.

A muslim does the exact same thing using his quaran to prove the authenticity of mohammed.

If a person, or group of people write a book and in chapter 30 say what is going to happen in chapter 60 and then write chapter 60 as predicted, this does not make it a supernatural book, it makes it a fictional book. 

The questions asked by god in the story of job are an example of the writers ignorance of the forces of nature that control the earth's climate and cosmology, etc.
These mysteries have been answered by scientists and are no longer attributed to the fictional bronze age god of the bible.

Look at the big picture and stop using tunnel vision like christianity is the only religion you are aware of. Nobody is going to go to heaven or hell. We are already there and it is wonderful.

Mantraa -

You have stated that the questions asked in the book of Job are an example of the writer's ignorance of the forces of nature. You shame yourself. Check out the following:

In ancient times it was generally believed that the earth was flat. It was also believed that it was supported by something or the other beneath its flat surface. Many myths evolved about the things that were supporting it.

However without any geological, astronomical or cosmological knowledge, Job wrote:

He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26.7.

How did he know that the earth hangs on nothing, so to speak?

The shape of the Earh.

Despite contrary assertions, the fact of a spherical earth was clearly proclaimed in the Bible by the prophet Isaiah nearly twenty-eight centuries ago ,  "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers [etc.]" Isaiah 40:22 (NKJ). When Isaiah wrote this verse he used the Hebrew word "khug" to describe the shape of the earth. Although this word is commonly translated into the English word "circle," the literal meaning of this word is "a sphere."

How did the prophet know that the earth was a sphere? Science did not know this until about 20 centuries later?

I would be highly interested in seeing you attempt to explain these away: but i would advise you not to be too desperate to come up with an unlikely explanation.

Would you like to take back your words about Job merely showing ignorance?

Because i am certain that if you atheists lived in those times, just like every body else, you would have believed the earth to be flat, and not known that it was hanging more or less, on nothing. - The prophets would clearly have been miles ahead of you. So please, give some respect.

You might therefore want to see these words in a different light -

36 Who endowed the heart with wisdom
       or gave understanding to the mind [h] ?

Lots of evil has been done in the name of Religion.

Let's take one example: the crusades.

What caused the crusades -

1. The gospel as preached by Jesus OR

2. Individual greed and lust for power?

Give me a break. I am pissed off at religion myself, but that dont mean we should throw off our heads in the mad rush to slander it.

Noetic100, please come over here and defend your God, he is being taken to pieces by Abuzola with quotes from the Bible.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-330432.0.html