₦airaland Forum

plaetton: 1st question:

In the beginning god said let there be light and there was light. What was the source of the light? Where did the light shine from?

Deep Sight: Can you tell me if it is an assumption or a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe will have some gravitational pull about them.

Can you tell me whether we have observed all planets in the universe.

If I say to you that planets have a gravitational pull about them - is that an assumption, or is it a valid statement arising from what we have seen about planets?

(Reuters) - An odd planet the size of Neptune, made mostly of hot, solid water, has been discovered orbiting a nearby star and offers evidence that other planets may be covered with oceans, European astronomers reported on Wednesday.

Called GJ 436b, the planet orbits quickly around a cool, red star some 30 light-years away, the team at the Geneva Observatory said.

"It's not a very welcoming planet," Frederic Pont, an astronomer who helped make the discovery, said in a telephone interview. The planet is hot because it is near its star and under high pressure because of its mass.

"The water is frozen by the pressure but it's hot. It's a bit strange -- we are used to water changing conditions because of temperature, but in fact water can also be solidified by pressure," Pont said.

The planet is also likely blanketed by hydrogen, the researchers said -- conditions hardly conducive to life. But if there is water, there could be water on other planets in other solar systems and thus life as we know it.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/05/16/science-space-planet-dc-idUKN1621607620070516

Following from the example of planets and gravity above, so long as the singularity is matter, we can draw the same valid statements regarding causality. Remember I have explained severally how matter can not ever be said to be self existent as well. This also shows why the singularity cannot be self existent and as such is subject to cause and effect.

Particularly, the event of the expansion underlines this fact.

Not so really. Recall we have also discussed this. I have said to you and others severally that matter, necessarily not being self existent must be caused. Nothing is its own cause and as such matter cannot be caused by matter and thus it must be caused by an immaterial element. Which is what God is described as.

The desciption of GOD is key here. We are not talking Santa Claus, Zeus or Yahweh. We are talking an element we describe as the compound of necessary self-existent components.

danwo: @jayriginal
@plaetton

"she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.
And it was a custom in Israel"
- Judges 11:39

I hope you both noticed the punctuation mark ( : ) in the above verse and what followed after it (i.e. the immediate five words after and ending with the custom sentence)
Go figure?

Deep Sight: ^ ^ ^ Abeg, real or fake, they are not uncaused. That is the fact.

Have to be off now. Hope you enjoyed our banter as much as I did, and don't take my melodrama seriously o.

Later pal.

Deep Sight: The succeeding answer would be that it is intrinsic in the material universe. Cause and effect is more intrinsic. As such, I repeat: if any person wishes to cast doubt on its applicability else where in the universe, he will have to show why.

This is axactly what some dolts have been laboring unsuccessfully to do with virtual particles, radioactive decay, etc.

If they succeed, fine. They have not, simple.

We can know that Cause and Effect applies across the universe SO LONG AS WE ARE DEALING WITH MATTER: because we have seen that material phenomena need causes AND WE KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MATERIAL.



How? I cannot ask you to prove to me why something like grravity is NOT an assumption, can I? By the way, less gravity is not no gravity, in reference to your reference. Would you say that it will be am assumption to say that other planets have some gravitational pull as well about them? Would this be an assumption, or a correct inference from what we know? How do we know such then? Again, be honest here.

Scientific American

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

. . .

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

Deep Sight: Believe you me, i'm yet to live that one down.

Yes: and with reference to the example I gave about gravity, who would you say would have the burden of proof if it is said that gravity does not apply at the stage of the early universe. Given that we observe gravity in all aspects of the universe [your favorite term - "as far as we know"] - then if these statements are made -

Man X - Gravity applies across the universe

Man Y - Gravity is only an assumption as far as we know

- - - > Which man has the burden of proof? Be honest here.

I repeat: any person stating that which is contrary to common observation must bear the burden of proof.

The universe is material and we see cause and effect in all things material. Cause and Effect is thus intrinsic to matreial reality "as far as we know". As such, any person who asserts the contrary will have to show why. Just as Galileo had to - even when right. Just as Corpenicus had to - even when right.

Deep Sight: Your stance is just like me questioning the law of gravity and then asking you to show me the evidence for gravity. Its absurd, accept that.

jayriginal: ^^
Alright; fine.

1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist

We do not necessarily know that these first two are correct. It does "sound" correct but we do not necessarily know so.
Only if we accept BOTH premises can we move to the conclusion.
3. The Universe has a cause

Now can you really claim to have absolute knowledge of the truth of the first two premises or you are just going with what your natural experience suggests to you ?

As an example, the early man would have known that anything he throws up would come down (if unhindered). In that light, he would imagine (going by natural experience)that if he could throw an object far enough (like into space) it would still come down. We know better today but he didnt.
Therefore, on what grounds do you hold the first two premises to be true ?

https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/6#10393474

Deep Sight: He has already. Enigma caught him, and I had to ask him not to re appear.

I gave you Galileo: I showed you that EVEN WHERE RIGHT, any person questioning accepted scientific laws such as cause and effect, will have to adduce proof and examples validating his doubt.

I would not say, for example, that the law of gravity is an " assumption " - and then insist that the world should be the one to prove same to me. Evidence of gravity is all around us in the same way as evidence of cause and effect is all around us. If I wish to deny or question the law of gravity on any level - even at the level of the early universe - I will have to show my reasons for questioning that which is commonly observed.

This is what you failed to do, and I tire of explaining this fact to you. Once you question a commonly observed law, you must show WHY.

Your stance is just like me questioning the law of gravity and then asking you to show me the evidence for gravity. Its absurd, accept that.

Virtual particles have been made an issue by people who seek to prove that something may emerge from nothing. That is the exact point: virtual particles do not emerge from nothing, because the vacuums referred to are not nothing: they contained low gaseous pressure and as such are not nothing. In science, there has never been a perfect vacuum observed anywhere.

Deep Sight: Jesus mate, at leats my Dog does. And nah, he is somebody.

I have advised you before to stop obsessing. Weitin consine u inside my username nah?

Six and half a dozen. YOU made the contentions contrary to known science and so YOU had to give examples. Over several pitiful pages you absconded that duty. One single example of an uncaused material thing that you know of would have done.

Lol, after running away from virtual particles, you are back here? Anthing that emerges from somethingness is not uncaused. FACT. As such, since it is proven that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, then virtual particles are not uncaused. Period.

U won't be the first mate. The moniker itself screams for mockery, and it gets it. They even say "Deep Sh.it"

No matter.

Deep Sight: Yawn.

I cannot account for your lapses in logic. As far as I know, if there is a ghost of inferiority hanging around here anywhere, you reek of it.

Stop stalking me.

Mr. "I-like-science-but-I-cannot-give-scientific-examples-for-my-nonsensical-postulations"

OLODO! WAKA JOOR!

Deep Sight: Abeg jaare. Do what to whom? You must be living in la la land. As far as I know, you have not said anything worth reading ever since your lamentable arrival on this board.

Please PhysicsQED, come and make your posts and save me from reading such stark, asinine nothingness.

Deep Sight: Talking about lightweight, I am not sure that anyone has ever seen you post any thing of significance or remote moment anywhere on this forum. To be fair: you are one of the lightest minds I have ever engaged in this forum: there have been far far better. People who actually say things. Cna you remind anyone of anything of significance that you have ever set forth on this forum, save cheer-leading for dolts such as logicboy, Dawkins and the rest.

Please stick your words right up where they belong and don't strive to associate where you do not belong.

frosbel: A good question.

I admit that this is not 100% clear to me at this moment. Allow me time to do some bible research.


However , the fact remains that there is no bible verse to suggest that Christ descended spiritually into the grave.

Facts are :

1. He committed his spirit to the father

2. His body was buried.

I will come back to the valid point you mentioned.

thanks,

Pastor AIO: bottomline: There is a direct line of succession in the RCC from the catholic and apostolic church that wrote the Nicene creed (I believe in one catholic and apostolic church) and also compiled the bible. Other churches, namely the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Ethiopian orthodox churches can also trace a line of succession from this original catholic church.

Everybody else are just pompous upstarts with no grounding, no tradition and no leg to stand on. The arrogant impetuosity of trying to be all 'holier than thou' is really quite repulsive.

frosbel: He went to the presence of the Father, . . .

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

PhysicsQED: Dude, he sometimes piles on assumptions upon assumptions upon misunderstandings and portrays what he's claiming to the contrary as superior while implying or stating outright that others are foolish. Even if there were a reasonable argument somewhere in there, there's absolutely no line of thinking I've seen so far in our discussions that I haven't already come across and I wouldn't pretend I think he's any less wrong than I do just to be polite.

Deep Sight: I am Deist, my good friend, you should bear that in mind in reference to the points I set forth.

Certainly not: I AM, as I have told you, Deist, and as such I do not believe such voodoo: it is rather the materialist scientists whose arguments amount to the above.

danwo: @jayriginal
@Evil Brain

You need to realise that Judges 11:39 is about another Jephthat's vow, which retrospectively he agreed to

Uyi Iredia: When I say infallibility I'm talking about the correspondence with hard facts and internal consistency and soundness of literary style. If the book fulfills this requirements then you can say it is infallible. I've been specific now so answer the question.

I'm asking the question because the doctrine of infallibility of the Scriptures is contested by atheists. I was trying to draw an analogy to other works in this case The God Delusion to show that some books while not divinely inspired could be said to be infallible_or not.

Deep Sight: SHADDAP! I have ALWAYS been a baby. And only babies inherit the kingdom o' Gad. . . hic. . . need to finist off this brandy, an get more polite. . . hic. . . .

Deep Sight: O, i SO KNEW you would revert with an appeal to i.diotic authourity.

Dawkind is D.aft.

And so is anyone who regards him as anything more than daft.

N[u]A[/u]NSENSE.

Deep Sight: And so did many ecclessiatical scientists back in the day. . . . for postulating NANSENSE.

Dawkins is illiterate. Lousily so. Not a thousand flying pigs will change that fact.

Deep Sight: By record, Juvenile Illiteracy is an increasin source of angina, and general heart DYSfunction. As such, I will urge you: and other "logicboy" admirers, to WATCH yours!

Deep Sight: Oh, yes he did fuel alot on NL. . . . such as increased juvenile idiocy.

Deep Sight: No: Dawkins is NOT even a man of science. He is, as obvious from even the sligtest reading of his nonsensical claptrap, a disgrace to every scientific canon known to man.

He is also desperately and frighteningly illogical and illiterate.

Worse so; those who credit him with any iota of scientific inclination.

You see: science is logic: and the desperately illogical is therefore necessarily desperately unscientific.

In my humble opinion, the schools he attended should be closed down, his certificates withdrawn and used to wrap shawarmas, his books used as toilet paper, his postulations circulated on Joke sections of Internet Forums, and his brain fed to maggots.

Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.

Awards and Recognition
Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (HonLittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.

In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year for his work on the BBC's Horizon episode, The Blind Watchmaker.

His other awards include the Zoological Society of London's Silver Medal (1989), the Finlay Innovation Award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002), and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).

Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. He was short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll. In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006, as well as the Galaxy British Book Awards's Author of the Year Award for 2007. In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, and he was ranked 20th in The Daily Telegraph's 2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses. He was awarded the Deschner Award, named after German anti-clerical author Karlheinz Deschner.

Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during its annual conference, honouring an outstanding atheist whose work has done the most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year; it is known as the Richard Dawkins Award, in honour of Dawkins's own efforts.

In February 2010, Dawkins was named to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Honorary Board of distinguished achievers.

In 2012, scientists studying fish in Sri Lanka honored Dawkins by creating Dawkinsia as a new genus name (members of this genus were formerly members of the genus Puntius). Explaining the reasoning behind the genus name, lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda was quoted as stating that "Richard Dawkins has, through his writings, helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined [...] We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth.

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

odumchi: Warriors were fortified during pre-colonial times and not during the modern era. In the modern era most people were converted to Christianity and no longer believed in those things.

ifyalways: Onyi,things like chewing bottle, voodoo to withstand bullet,rings that can make one appear and disappear at will. I don't think they qualify as magic, they are voodoo at work. Perhaps we should start by distinguishing both;voodoo and magic.

Btw, where do you place the African rain makers?voodoo or magic?

Strangest diet

Michel Lotito (France) (b. 15 June 1950) of Grenoble, France, known as Monsieur Mangetout, ate metal and glass from 1959 until his death last year. His diet since 1966 included 18 bicycles, 15 supermarket trolleys, seven TV sets, six chandeliers, two beds, a pair of skis, a low-calorie Cessna light aircraft and a computer. He is said to have provided the only example in history of a coffin (handles and all) ending up inside a man. By October 1997, he had eaten nearly nine tons of metal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/2976278/Weird-world-records-bizarre-entries-in-the-Guinness-Book-of-World-Records.html?image=3

Delafruita: still in church(though spending almost all my time on my phone).dont even know what the sermon is about but i couldnt help but hearing the part about "samson killed 1000 phillistines with the jaw of an asss".how the fvck does someone even believe such fable?