₦airaland Forum

rhektor:
what flaw is there? That a word could not create itself, neither do chance create any word how much much a complex DNA as Organisms have? So you mean that is a flaw oh really? All these wannabe nairaland atheists wouldn't stop to amaze me

TLuzzie:
JackBizzle, hopefulLandlord, CatfishBilly, Deicide, LightandDarkness, scepticalpyrrho......

I agree with KingEbukasBlog that Something coming from nothing is a LOGICAL ABSURDITY and the most IMPOSSIBLE thing conceivable. It is a category error. It cannever happen under any circumstances. Either EXISTENCE is all there has ever been and will ever be [FOREVER] or NONEXISTENCE is all there has ever been and will ever be [ETERNALLY]. Neither can come from the other. It is absolutely impossible. And since we exist, it is absolutely certain that there was NEVER a time in the past when there was nonexistence, and nonexistence is never going to be possible, for all eternity.

I also agree that since the physical universe had a beginning, it is therefore contingent, unnecessary, and noneternal, which automatically implies that it must have sound, necessary, noncontigent, eternal foundations. This ipso facto makes infinite regress an impossible idea that shouldn't even be entertained in logical discussions. There must be a first, eternal, uncreated, noncontingent, necessary CAUSE [or set of causes] on which the physical universe depends for its existence. This conclusion flows inevitably from impeccable logic. It is IRREFUTABLE, unless one is prepared to venture into the madhouse.

Having said that, I have quite a little bit of problem with the definition of atheism being thrown around. I don't expect any atheist to deny the first cause. It's insane. If the physical universe had a beginning in time, it must definitely have sure foundations that have always existed prior to its emergence - because, like I earlier pointed out, existence CANNOT come from nonexistence. But I completely disagree with the claim that anyone who accepts this fact automatically becomes a deist, and whoever claims to be an atheist has denied the first cause. This rubbish flows from the fact that the first cause has been labelled with the word "GOD", and anyone who denies God has effectively denied the first cause and is therefore a lunatic.

I accept a first cause or a first set of causes that serve as the foundation of the physical universe, but I do not make any assertions about what it is. The deist already made the claim that it is a supreme being, so we're not in the same camp. I know for a FACT that the Abrahamic God, as well as every other God humanity has conjured up among different cultures is FALSE, mythical and imaginary. Denying all these deities is what should be meant by "atheism" not the denial of the first cause.

As for the Deists, I have a question for them...... [color=darkgreen]Did your conjured up supreme being create the physical universe out of ALREADY EXISTING RAW MATERIAL or out of ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS, NONEXISTENCE[/color]?

felixomor:
Jack has no business with proven facts.....
For Jack is a dull boy.

felixomor:
Which "deist " present their thought "process?
How many can u mention?

Theists have far more reasons than any argument group for the existence of God. No matter your twisting.

Besides, you are the one who says things must be proven, you are the one who knows what a folklore, and myth is without proving.
That was how Dawkins ignorantly wrote in his best-selling book that Jesus never existed, until historians fooled him publicly.
Sorry atheism is more than dogmatic, considering those who fell for that book.

rhektor:
So you think everyone here will be making arguments without thinking like you do? No Mr Jack

The ones here you've not even responded logically to them not to mention starting another argument. You just want to divert attention from the real purpose of the thread is know your kind. Dilly dally

rhektor:
Oh really? Then why do you ask who created the creator?

rhektor:
Which means you've agreed that there is a creator.
Until you've known the creator there is no point in trying to know who created the creator. Before you begin to find who created the universe you've already known that the universe exists but trying to know who created nothing seems too vague to me don't you think?

felixomor:
Oh
Of course Jack is a dull boy that calls fact "silly"

felixomor:
Science has already confirmed the intelligence of God bro
.......
And even without it, we know God exists......
So

KingEbukasBlog:
Because abstract objects are an example of uncreated things does not mean all uncreated things are abstract .

I just tire for you oo bro honestly .

Good night jare .

May sense fall on you in your dreams because Im sure it can never happen in reality

KingEbukasBlog:
It means that an abstract object is an example of an uncreated thing .

KingEbukasBlog:
Show me where I said God is like abstract objects .

KingEbukasBlog:
There is no exception here . The premise only focuses on things that came into existence

There is a big difference between Whatever begins to exist has cause and Everything has cause . Assuming I had said 'everything has a cause' and made the creator an exception then it becomes special pleading

I gave examples of other things that are uncreated Eg abstract objects .

felixomor:
Hian,
We are talking about science and how it operates,
We are not talking about God.

KingEbukasBlog:
You always argue and abuse when your argument has been shown to be specious and untenable .

Prove me wrong : How does the existence of abstract object like numbers , sets etc prove that God does not exist ?

If it is not a senseless cavil , then it is not JackBizzle



Oya come and chase me

LightandDarkness:
How can you affirm the existence of something without knowledge or awareness of an aspect of it's nature. Something exists could mean everything exists and is not specific to anyone thing, to even justify the existence of a thing you must've observed something that made you think the thing exists-that would be a proposed quality, property, feature, functions-essentially something pertaining to it's nature.

felixomor:
You are furthering your ignorance
"000000010 " ot whatever isnt base 10

My point is made, all I needed to show you was that your "1+1 = 2" is wrong in a different context.
Period.
If you wrote "2 in base 2" as your answer in a maths exam, you will fail woefully

And that clearly tell you that before the introduction of number bases, 1+1 anywhere was 2....

And that was the point I meant by what is right today, can be wrong tomorrow.......
I guess u didnt read it before commenting.

KingEbukasBlog:
You can affirm the existence of something without describing its nature , true of false ?

Existence is a state of being

Nature is just a description

Two different things

KingEbukasBlog:
I'm not here up by this time to indulge in silly arguments . You've had your chance .

LightandDarkness:
Separately this argument of existence and the nature of that which exists is interesting. I believe to assert that something exists you must describe it's nature, without a description of it's nature then it doesn't exist. To simply describe the existence of something is to state it's nature.

KingEbukasBlog:
There is no exception here . The premise only focuses on things that came into existence

There is a big difference between Whatever begins to exist has cause and Everything has cause . Assuming I had said 'everything has a cause' and made the creator an exception then it becomes special pleading

I gave examples of other things that are uncreated Eg abstract objects .

spacetacular:
Wait! The earth's core exists due to pics on Google? You are simply built for laughs.

So you can perceive the earth's core through google pics?

Do you know what the term PHYSICALLY PERCEIVE means at all?

Quarks on their own are NOT observable. My focus is on quarks and not hadrons. Your level of ignorance seems legendary.

Here I am sipping tea and laughing so hard. You take the dumb cake Jack. You really do.

spacetacular:
I am struggling here to see how you can even initiate an argument with anyone with the one tracked method of reasoning you employ.

The process of writing a book is so simplistic because it is borne from the mental picture of the writer. He alone conceived and brought it forth.

Editing it is part of the process but does not make it complex. Editing is simply an expansion of an already simple thing. Editing is just so it could be understood or further thicken the plot which is still a mental picture.

I already told you that what you perceive as complex is simply because of the level you are.

A creator can be simple but in a higher level which is His realm but to you is complex based on your perception. Any complex thing to you that is derived from this creator is seen as simple by him but not to you.

You are limited by your field of vision so can only declare in the now and within the limits of your earthly confinement.

To the creator the planets could look as simple as the balls arranged on a billiard table or your complexity of space could be as simple as trapped smoke in a bottle. The burning out of stars which may seem complex to you could be as simple as blowing out a candle to a creator.

You need to open your mind and stop messing around the way you do. You can never learn.

spacetacular:
Did you read my comment or not?

I mentioned quarks. Have you perceived them physically?

Have you perceived the earth's core?

Can you perceive dark matter?

Can you perceive ultraviolet light?

Can you perceive gravity? It can be measured but not observed.

Can you perceive The Mind?
We can observe the brain and its chemical reactions, but thoughts are completely intangible to us.

Can you perceive quantum particles?

You asked for 3 but I have offered you more than that just to show how narrow minded you are.

spacetacular:
This was your comment which I replied to :

By stating the realm/framework/world in which something exists, i think we have given a property/feature/nature of that thing or an hint of what the nature of what the thing might be.

That comment of yours showed me that you did not understand my comment based on ontology.

What I am driving at is that physical proof is not always required in order to show existence because not all existence is "physically" perceived!

spacetacular:
You are just going round in circles. Perceptions vary. What you term as complex to one can be simple to another.

From our perspective we see the universe as complex but to a creator who could make such complexity which we see it is seen as simple.

So saying that the creator must be a complex being is silly really.

The person who conceived the content of a book in his mind and put it in writing breaks the plot down from the beginning all the way to the end so they wrote a simple book. However the reader is intrigued by the content of the book because they were not privy to the original mental picture of the writer.

KingEbukasBlog:
Very shallow as usual




There are so many philosophical objections to that thought especially

Esse est percipi

KingEbukasBlog:
Contraptions are complex but clearly , they were not built with creativity .

My point is : Being complex is not a prerequisite for being intelligent.

The mind is mental not physical . Haven't you heard of the mind -body problem ?

KingEbukasBlog:
God is a pure simple mind , infinite consciousness. The same way your spirit is a mind , simple and conscious.

But God and the spirit of man are not made up of the ousia

KingEbukasBlog:
Can you name the parts of God that makes him complex ?

spacetacular:
True colour? whatever that means.

We are not talking about a machine or a man are we?

We are talking about God and all of creation both seen (known) and unseen (unknown).

Evolutionists believe that the universe came about from a singularity and the universe expanded from that. If I am to go with what they say, can you also lay claim that this singularity was more complex than what came from it?

If you say that this singularity was more complex then that defeats evolution especially since they believe humanity evolved from a single cell.

Now If I declare God as the creator which He is then how can you describe Him when you cannot perceive him physically?

I do not know how you arrived at Checkmate.

KingEbukasBlog:
To be complex means to have intricate and connected parts , so will you help me name the parts of God that make him complex ?

urheme:
Which day you go get sense .....what if it is a babalawo that heals an amputee .

Pastors don't heal......Only God can heal.