₦airaland Forum

Knights!

Excellent ripostes! Good deep thinking by every body.

I think the question which might surmise my thinking is this.

We established that the universe is something. We also established that no amalgamation of nothings can make a something. We therefore saw that something must have been involved in the coming into being of the universe. (0 + 1 = 1).

We are trying to define what that something is.

You are walking in a desert. You come across an intricate, well ordered mathematical equation written in the sand - possessing complicated and advanced equations and laws. You conclude -

1. It appeared there by itself OR
2. Given the extensive complexity of the equations and mathematical principles, there is some element of intelligence (however defined) responsible for the equations.

The universe is the most well ordered, intricate structure governed by observable laws.

Even if, as a preliminary point, we do not accede to the existence of a being, we must perforce accede to the existence of an element of intelligence in the something that is the rationale for the universe. That element of intelligence could be anything, or described in any terms, but it is undeniably present.

I will adduce unquestionble evidence of the existence of the element of intelligence.

Therefore:

0 + 0 = 0; so (for anything to exist) -

0 + 1 = 1, and (as a necessary factor in the existence of "1"

1 + 1 = 2.

The last equation (1 + 1 = 2) is the element of intelligence. The element that, as Prizm said, even in the absence of a mind to conceive it, would remain true. In this lies the secret, which we will shortly discuss.

Understand: the inherent calculum in the last equation as an independent reality is the evidence of the existence of intelligence.

Will be back.

Knights of the Round Table!

I'm back. Sorry i had to hurry off last night for my nightly round of beer. Lets get the discussion back on track please. Prizm, Pastor, thanks for useful insights. However indulge me a little, cos i'm going with logical decuction only for now, will come to intuition later if necessary.

We stopped at 0 + 0 = 0. I am pleased to note that every body seems to have accepted this. Prizm helped put the nail on that. I hope those who dont see the relevance of that equation to this discourse can ponder a little more on the fact that nothingness clearly cannot spwan somethingness.

Let it be well understood that the world, the universe, existence, whatever you may choose to call it - is something and accordingly could not come out of nothing. That is what the equation proves.

Therefore something caused the universe. (0 + 1= 1)

The question we need to ask is - what is that "something".

The argument now is about the basic attributes of that something. I do not by any means seek to prove or show the totality of the nature of that something, but just a few incontestible attributes, that should be enough to form a composite image.

Once the composite image of that something is formed, any man can chose to call it what he will.

The key attributes of that something which i intend to infer are:

   1. Intelligence

   2. Law

   3. Order

   4. A sense of the Beautiful

   5. Duality

Stay tuned,

huxley:
Whoever said the universe started out of nothing?  Can you show any reputable scientific source that says that?   As far as I know, currently scientific findings only says that the present universe was created out of a singularity.   The singularity is NOT nothing, or is not no thing.   PLEASE, please, note the difference and go educate yourself on the scientific data first.

I agree with you!!! I did not state that any scientist has stated that the universe started from nothing. Slow down, and you will understand my basic premises. We cannot jump too far ahead in a discussion of this nature or we will easily get lost.

I did indicate that this is a very profound discussion which needs to be taken step by step.

We both agree that the universe did not come out of nothing - very good! We will take it step by step from there.

huxley:
If that is the case, why did you start your argument with 0 + 1 = 1 ? Why did you not start with 1 = 1, or A = A? Are you familiar with Ockam's razor? Why introduce extrenous elements when they are not necessary?

I started it from zero, because you may not be aware that some persons would go so far as to contest that and state that it could have come from nothing. Like i said, we are building a pyramid here, every block has to be in place, dont worry, its 1 careful step at a time

huxley:
By the way, what is the differencr betwen the following equations?

1) 0 + 1 = 1

and

2) 1 = 1

There is no difference!!! Look at the equations carefully and understanding will come: it simply shows that 1 cannot be produced by zero and that is the first plank of my thesis.

Mantraa - you are getting brilliant!!!! But -

mazaje:
On what basis did you come to the conclusion that something caused the universe? How do you know that the universe is not eternal and uncreated

We know that the Universe is not eternal because it is expanding. That much is verified. Since it is expanding, if you follow the process backward you will find that you will see a smaller and smaller universe until you arrive at a point in the distant past where it was nothing more than a single point. So there - it started at some point - and this reasoning remains intact even if applied to the existence of any other universes. Nevertheless, since the existence of other Universes will at this point be speculation, let us confine our discussion to this universe, which we are certain had a beginning. You see, the continuous expansion of the universe is what led some scientists to initiate the big bang theory - because at some point. that expansion must have started. And the whole point of my 0 + 0 = 0 equation is to prove that it could not have started out of nothing - that something started it.

@ Mantraa, please refer to my earlier post above on the fact that even if physical laws change (which i do not believe), they cannot change with respect to the zero element. That's what is at issue here.

Krayola2:
can u even do any calculation using 0 ? Isn't zero nothing? how can u do anything with nothing?

I ain't no math whiz, actually i don't know shit about math,but i don't think any equation with only zero on each side means anything.

This proves that the zero element is nothing, and must always remain zero! This proves that 0 + 0 = 0! Everywhere! This proves, like i said in my last post, that the world could not have come out of the zero element, and something had to cause it.

@ Tudor, Mazaje - Very good!

We are now breaking out of the first level of the discussion. Let me just add for emphasis before going forward that the reason it was important to accept that 0 + 0 = 0 in all circumstances is so that we appreciate that once we have an element ("1" or anything that exists at all in any form., then it could not have come out of the zero quatity. There must be the intervention of a substantive element to move from zero to something ("1".

Therefore: 0 + 1 = 1. Agreed?

If you accept the above equation, you accept that the world, universe, existence, whatever you call it - came not from the zero element, but from something. There needed to be an intervention in the zero element by 1 (That is to say: 0 + 1 = 1).

Thus the premise is; something caused the universe. Agreed?

There have always been many magicians about throughout history, even in Jesus' time, there were many that did the sorts of things that he did. Do your research.

Fyneguy, i see what you are driving at, and it is a profound point which fanatics will not want to even address.

Most people dont realize that if they lived in Jesus' time, they would have regarded him and his apostles as a sect and nothing more - just the way we see Guru Maharaji, Olumba Olumba Obu, etc.

I think he was probably a genuine messenger of God though.

Deep Sight:
Also; even if, for the sake of argument we accept that the laws of physics change, we must perforce accept that nothing can change with reference to the zero quantity - nothingness or infinity - for the very reason that the very nature of zero is nothing. Therefore there is nothing to actually change at all - nothing exists. For this reason, in all circumstances and at all places, the zero quantity, by definition, remains zero.

Thus even if the dubious principle that physical laws change can be accepted, once we speak of the zero quantity, there is quite simply nothing to change. Not in any circumstance.

So yes - 0 + 0 = 0. Everywhere. Agreed?

@ tudor, mazaje, would you like to respond directly to this rationale on the zero quantity above.

mazaje:
When will you guys stop making all these unsubtantiated claims ?. . .did any god tell you this him/her self or are you just regurgitating the ideas/thoughts that others before you have been saying all along with out any evidence at all to back up this claim?

@ mazaje - i am not a slavish adherent of anything fed to me by any one. You should have noticed that by now. It took me many years to arrive at my conclusions trust me. In the past i have been an Anglican, Jehovah's Witness, Rosicrucian, considered Islam, and almost Crossbearer. I have read the bible, the quoran, the grail message, and many Buddhist, Taoist, shintoist, and even hindu philosophies because i am a SEEKER. So don't worry, lets just reason along little by little, we will get there,

Chrisbenogor:
@ Deep Sight
Do us a favour and fast forward to the part where you say something has to create something and that something which creates something does not have to be created.

Easy, lets take it jeje, its a profound discussion, we will get there

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=315294.msg4427966#msg4427966 date=1251311356]@Deep sight.
Slow your roll. . . .lets first establish that 0 + 0 = 0 all over the universe then we can go ahead. . .[/quote]Is it your expectation that the laws of physics change? (Be very careful in reflecting on this question).

Also; even if, for the sake of argument we accept that the laws of physics change, we must perforce accept that nothing can change with reference to the zero quantity - nothingness or infinity - for the very reason that the very nature of zero is nothing. Therefore there is nothing to actually change at all - nothing exists. For this reason, in all circumstances and at all places, the zero quantity, by definition, remains zero.

Thus even if the dubious principle that physical laws change can be accepted, once we speak of the zero quantity, there is quite simply nothing to change. Not in any circumstance.

So yes - 0 + 0 = 0. Everywhere. Agreed?

Chrisbenogor:
@ Deep Sight

There is no emiprical reason for the existence of God which you should have defined in the first place. Do you mean the montheistic God of Christianity Islam and Judaism or do you mean sango or amadioha or do you just mean a prime mover?

@ Chrisbenogor - In my earlier post i defined the God i am speaking of. The Uncaused Cause. I also specifically described Him as a Conscious & Intelligent Supernatural Being responsible for the creation of all that exists.

@ Posakosa;

Canuck did not answer my question, Canuck only shared with us the theories of a philosopher/ mathematician which were debunked. The process i intend to reason through is quite different from the process adopted by that philosopher/ mathematician.

I indicated in the beginning that this is a very intricate reasoning process, so i will crave your indulgence not to jump too far ahead. We will come eventually to where the "1" came from. Let us start first by simply accepting if we can that for there to be 1, the minimum equation would be 0 + 1 = 1. In other words that there must be a "something" before "something" can be, and that no amalgamation or configuration of nothings, will make a something.

@ Canuck - i really love your contribution, its very insightful. I did not mean to suggest that believers are not smart, after all, i myself belive in God's existence and even purpose. What i wanted to avoid is simply the arrival of fanatics on the thread. The sort of people who may call Tudor and the rest demon possessed just because they have a different world-view.

Thanks again Mazaje.

At this point i agree with you that we need to Clarify the nature of the "God" of which we speak.

The "God" whose existence i seek to prove is not necessarily exactly as described by religion, but does share most of the attributes imputed to him.
To be specific, i speak of a Conscious & Intelligent Supernatural Being responsible for the creation of all that exists in totality.

@ Tudor, Mazaje, You dont need to worry about 0 + 0 = 0 being applicable to anything outside the universe or elsewhere in existence. It is sufficient that it is manifestly the case as regards this planet, we can take it from there. We will start from home, planet earth - ok by you?

If 0 + 0 = 0, then for the world to exist, the minimum equation would have to be 0 + 1 = 1. Agreed?

Love God and Love your fellow man. Life is Passion. The aim is inner growth. Death is a setting aside of matter only, whilst the substance moves on to the next grade in the school that is called existence. That's it.

Thanks Mazaje. To clarify, as i said above, i am not christian. Or muslim.

Nevertheless evidence of God's existence is all around us. But we will pursue the logical path to understanding it. Since i see the Atheists only respond to empirical reasoning. We've got it in abundance. @ Posokasa: Wait and see.

Now we are on the same page, we all agree that 0 + 0 = 0.

Therefore, no amalgamation or configuration of any amount of nothings ("0" can ever produce a something ("1". Agreed?

But his reasoning even if agressive is much sounder than the lot of people who blindly believe all the myths of a foreign race (xtians)

Yes it does, Tudor.

So go ahead and answer the question: You accept that 0 + 0 = 0?

p.s: i'm kinda new to N/L, i would like some others in on this, dont know how to contact them - particularly a guy called Prizm, very sound reasoning he's got - also very technical & academic, no sentiments. Also Wirinet, KAG, $osisi, Davidylan, Adaku & ors

Tudor, Davidylan, i have a discussion which i'd be interested in having you guys in on. Just opened a thread for an academic theological discussion on the existence of God,  please chaeck it out, its titled: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God.

How can i contact Adaku123 and other Atheists/ Agnostics who may like to see Atheism finally dealt a fatal blow!

Please join me on the thead!

I am opening this discussion specifically for Atheists on Nairaland.

I have noticed that the Atheists are often very intelligent people, almost to a fault, and have strong respect for rational thinking.

I am neither Christian nor Muslim, but i am convinced that logical reasoning can prove the existence of God.

Tudor is my specific target in this discussion.

The levels of reasoning required to set out this argument are very intricate - for this reason i will build up the argument slowly, one step at a time.

Those not inclined to deep reflection on matters of spirituality and logic, please keep off, this is an academic and theological discourse only and i am not interested in the views of any religious fanatics save to the extent that they may contribute in an academic and logical fashion to the discourse.

So lets kick it off: Tudor, do you agree with this equation -

0 + 0 = 0.

It is now established that the singular requirement for being a pentecostal  christian in Nigeria is an astounding degree of stupidity or gullibility.

Most congregations are not smarter than a herd of cows.

Touch not his anointed, blah blah blah,

When Reverend King was doing his thing, why didn't we say "touch not his anointed". When Zoe Ministries incorporated christian 419, why didn't we say "touch not his anointed". This "touch not his anointed" is the most silly thing i have ever heard. Nobody should spew that on this forum again, ok?

The trouble is that people just don't even understand the word "anointed." We refer here to a person specially chosen of God for a purpose - that purpose need not be a pastoral calling. David was anointed of God - as a ruler. And a very special one at that. Many of us may well be "anointed" to perform one purpose or the other in the world - nothing to do with a church or mosque. This has nothing to do with the clowns who of their own business calculations proclaim themselves "Bishop", "Reverend" etc. That's not anointing. They are only anointing themselves with your tithes. Fool's money. If you want to give God money, go to an orphanage, a hospital, a refugee camp and donate. That money will at least not be used for purchasing private jets.

@ Aloy  Emeka - aside from the rather unintelligent nature of most of your posts, you display an astonishing lack of basic biblical knowledge for one who calls himself a christian.

These pentecostal zombies would defend their tax-masters even if they built a replica of buckingham palace in otta as a personal abode with church funds.

Touch not his anointed!

@ oladayo 042 -

You are right - some churches, not all churches. Mostly i find the old orthodox churches are more transparent and accountable. I am yet to see a single pentecostal or new generation church that publiishes its accounts and records of inflows and outflows. They are terribly corrupt businesses only surpassed by the stupidity of their hypnotized flock.

@ markemmi -

Please give me a break. I see miracles everyday - the very sunrise itself is a wonder in my sight. We dont need a theiving pastor to lay his corrupt hands on us before we see true miracles of God.

@spikedcylinder -

I am happy you admit the miracles are a "product" that need to be sold. In that case the churches should be taxed, and be regulated by SON or some other regulator.

infact, instead of wasting my time with a salaried job, i guess i should go open my own church, abeg, make una come dey pay me tithe, make i take buy private jet, dont worry, your faith will heal you!

Church = Business Centre

Pastor = Managing Direcor

Congregation = Customers

Tithes = Fool's money

Charge = Obtaining by False Pretenses

Defence = "Touch not his anointed"

Needed? CBN (Church Ban in Nigeria) wield the big stick, these guys deserve to be arrested alongside the Bank CEOs who have not robbed this country more than the so called BusinessMen of Cash God

But 0 +1 =1

@ Dexmond, you are entirely correct: and we will be inviting others shortly to a NL symposium on this.

For me, i will start with the very simple equation: 0 + 0 = 0.

Something cannot come cout of nothing.

Therefore: The Universe came out of something, something brought it about.

We will later come back to define the qualities of that "something."

For me, one of its clear attributes is an all-encompassing Intelligence. We will talk.

@ Tudor - Look out for the thread i will open shortly to discuss this. A fluke, an accident, as the start point for existence is not tenable in any event. Other options may be considered.

@ Tudor -

so that i do not send my desertation with the wrong perspective in mind, please clarify for me:

1. Is your position that God (as known and understood by world religions, as a being) does not exist OR

2. That there is in existence some intelligent principle or element which is the "uncaused cause" and which is NOT God (as described above) OR

3. The Universe and Existence are a fluke, a cosmological accident and nothing more.

@ Topic Opener -

My suggestion: Why dont you read the Grail Message yourself?

You see, its very dangerous to rely on other people's opinions. People can be so funny. And ignorant.

Just read it yourself, and come to your own conclusion.

By the way, even though i am not an adherent, i have read it, and i can safely say its the most enlightening and inspiring book that i know. It preaches nothing but love, peace and personal responsibility.

My dear friend Tudor has since confided in me that he is terribly sorry about the remark he made re: peeing on the quoran. You see he can be quite excitable some times but is really just a good fellow with an inquiring mind. Please accept my apologies on his behalf.

Very soon, i shall be presenting him with an extensive empirical desertation as to the definite existence of God.

I am best suited to do this, given that i am neither christian nor muslim, and thus have no bias in this matter.

[quote author=rich_john link=topic=312423.msg4394188#msg4394188 date=1250851823]@Thread
The comments am reading here is almost putting tears into my eyes

My Observations
1. One day these "MEN OF GAWD" will commit murder and people will defend them
2. Even if its proven that these people are quack, fake and false prophets beyond any shadow of doubt people will still follow them saying its a blackmail
3. When will gullible people get themselves free of this mess/syndrome called "touch not mine anointed", "dont speak against the man of god", etc why are people so fearful they cant use their brains anymore[/quote]Very well said. Touch not his anointed - my foot!

I am really sorry i have to say this, because i have tried to make a tradition of respecting every person's religion - since faith is a personal matter.

But i am pushed to the wall: the truth is this: the vast majority of the pentecostal movement in Nigeria is a terrible scourge - most of the time it appears to me that the first pre-condition for being pentecostal in this country is simply that one must have no brains.

This is a man who publicly insisted that people living with HIV would not be permitted to graduate from his school. How discriminatory can a so-called man of God be? What would Jesus do? This is a man who has now ordered his 2nd private jet. Yet all some people can say is "touch not his anointed." What stupendous crap. Y'all defending him - sorry to say this - but there is a great degree of ante-diluvian stupidity amongst his followers. People just cannot reason better than cows.

By the way, the so-called queen of Sheba is damn sexy, damn hot, i wouldn't mind having a night out with her.

@ Davidylan - nice to see you are a Christian who keeps his vision clear, keep it up.

@ Tudor;

Really your abusive words are a bit much i must say.

You show high intelligence in your arguments, and that interests me, also you have really witty come-backs that have me laughing really hard.

I would expect a man of such intelligence and humour to be rather less abusive. Let's take a shot at it: no more insults, ok?

Notice Adaku has since abandoned any insults and now sticks with the issues. That's the way to go.

Facing our little debate: i would advise you to learn a little subtlety: Sometimes when you score a point, and the other person comes round and agrees with you, rather than stomp on that person and scream your victory, you only need to quietly accept the point and carry on: it shows more grace.

Adaku has now stated that Atheism is not a religion. This is a point that both you and i insisted on. So what do we want to do now - have her hanged for conceding reasonably? What she has now sought to do, is to show that there are many complexities which should also be taken into consideration. That's fine and good.

@ Adaku -

Damn, what a pity (u are engaged!), Abel, lets go lick our wounds over some cat-fish peppersoup at Iya-Basirat!