₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: So, as for now, as for today, as for 2012, we can safely say that as far as we know, things are caused. So as far as we know, the premise of the CA is true and logical. If it becomes illogical tomorrow, fine. But as for today, it remains logical. And so as for today, you are still the one fantasizing.

Argument from ignorance. Your style of proving god. You engage in intellectual m@sturbation and want to be taken seriously. I think not.
Simply to do some research, you will not. You think you know better than experts in their field dont you ?

Appealing to ignorance is not going to do the trick. You show your poor grasp of logic therein. The reasoning is quite simple. As far as we know is the only thing you keep repeating. While "as far as you know" may give you reason to consider your proposition, it is no reason for anyone to swallow it whole. You energetically cling to things that support your position whether they make sense or not.

Be a good boy and go on the internet.
When you meet a physicist who gives you proof that things can indeed exist without causes (I notice how you have been setting up strawmen along the way) take your argument to him. Indeed, you need no degree in any of the sciences to best dedicated researchers.

We live every single day in a web of causation. You could not possibly type on NL without various causes that enable you to do so. Every single motion observed has a preceeding trigger. IT is beyond absurd to claim that we do not know this. But it is even worse to claim that people who mention the self evident fact of causation are the ones "assumming" things. He who asserts the contrary is the one assuming things. And very absurd things too

Did you break your glasses ? I asserted nothing. I said you do not know that either the first or second premise is true. I put it to you and your response was an appeal to ignorance. "As far as we know". Its a pity you had to start pouting cos we would have gotten to the stage where your arguments would have refuted themselves.
As far as we know, NOTHING can exist without having a beginning. I gave the following for your consideration.

Anything that exists has a beginning
(If) god exists
god MUST have a beginning.

This is all true AS FAR AS WE KNOW. You cleverly avoided that. Even if you do address it, because you so desperately wish to prove god, you will start making excuses and exempting it from your own rules.
You arent saying anything new. Sorry! You arent even making sense. Your whole argument is this "we dont know any better, therefore god". You are asserting but you arent proving.

You assume contingency of the Universe. Taking your observation of limited phenomena in your realm of existence and applying it to the vastness of the Universe commits the fallacy of composition as well as an argument from ignorance (as far as we know). It shouldnt be surprising though, coming from the same person who sought to argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist.

Deep Sight ? Acute Myopia is more like it.

^^
Sticks and stones. I hope you feel better now.
Nothing is lost on me as I am not in the habit of making assumptions like you. If I ask you for an explanation it is simply because I do not wish to assume.

Prove my point ? I did and you agree with me, you just will not admit it to yourself. Your CA is based on assumptions.

You only think you are making sense due to the limited nature of your mind. Not surprising to me. You keep talking of common sense, observation and logic. I really have given you a good example of how these things change and you choose to ignore it though you have acknowledged that what is true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow.
I asked you to do research.
Google is your friend. I have no interest in quoting any scientific journal on this matter. If you wish to find about things that can exist without causes, google it. After that, you can argue with the scientists who dare present their evidence of things that disagree with your assumptions. I have no time for that and as I have made clear, it has no bearing on my opinion. God and logic DO NOT mix. You must necessarily fail once you venture down that road.

Now look at you making a mockery of your "deep sight". I should give you an example of something that is uncaused (that exists). Lets assume (not a problem for you) that I cannot. Therefore you win right ? WRONG. There are known truths, and unknown truths and as history and the advance of civilization have shown us, some truths have been and will yet be discarded along the way. You build your arguments on assumptions and fallacies and strut around like you are saying anything meaningful. You start with an assumption and verify it by appealing to ignorance. How terrible. You might be a fan of science and maybe you like debating with scientists. I read up when I can just for information purposes. Never do I use these as a basis for my opinion. Depending on who I am arguing with, I may offer a scientific explanation as better than the religious one, but that is not to be taken as an endorsement. In this case, it is not in the least necessary to invoke science to see that you are just assuming.

Let me repeat what I said earlier, you have to be omniscient to assert that the premises in the CA are true. Appealing to ignorance by telling me that because we do not know better we must accept it is frankly not what I would expect from a self proclaimed "deep sight".

You cannot even prove your own case. When I ask how you know this, you simply appeal to ignorance. Ironically you will be the very first to assert that an atheist needs to be omniscient. Here you are asserting that which you cannot possibly know as fact. Too blinded by your exaggerated sense of intellect to even see the problem with what you are saying.

If saying something or making a point is agreeing with you, then I agree that I havent said "nada". Unfortunately there are no rules that say I must agree with you.

PS
Oh speaking of which,you may wish to review your speed of light thread. There are new developments I believe.

EDIT
By the way, you may want to stop saying that I said the Universe is/was uncaused. I have simply told you that you do not KNOW that it was caused.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Frankly, you did not address either the principles or pith of the argumnents put forward, save to moan about the fact that I am not omniscient. I thus can see nothing in your post of note to respond to.

Sticks and stones !
Whatever makes you happy. I have addressed your arguments thoroughly. To you, a discussion or an argument means to accept your position. I can practically picture you pouting. The first thing about the cosmological argument is that it is based on assumptions. There is more to get to but only if we move beyond the premises. Indeed to get there I would have to assume on my own.

Yes indeed, we can only root reality in what we know so far. And the fact remains that as far as we currently know, things are caused. As such, the idea that things are uncaused remains your fantasy: until proven otherwise - you are the one fantasizing.

Key Phrase : AS FAR AS WE KNOW. You of course are Deep Sight, the man who has a monopoly on knowledge, philosophy and logic. I didnt say that things are uncaused (did I?). I said that it is an assumption on your part to put forward the first premise (indeed the entire CA) as absolutely true. In saying "as far as we know", it shows that you at least allow that there are somethings you dont know about. I am not fantasizing, I am being practical. I gave you an example of a time when "as far as we know" the earth was flat. Before I will accept those premises, they will have to be proven. He who asserts must prove.

Its a shame that you started this discussion on such a high horse - saying that the cosmological argument is "junk", that you would not bother to discuss it, etc - and yet you have offered a stark nothing in terms of logic or principle to assert your position.

The real shame is you thinking you can use the cosmological argument to convince anyone that god exists. It might work for others who use religiously tinted lenses to look at the world because of the human tendency towards confirmation bias. Drop your assumptions and look again at the CA.

I didnt start by saying the cosmological argument was junk. I started by saying it had problems. You started this debate. I didnt want to discuss it and look at this now. Was it not exactly what I said would happen ? And now you are being petulant. Stop sulking. OPEN YOUR MIND !!!
Maybe I offered "a stark nothing" but maybe thats cos the CA is "a stark nothing" stacked on a bunch of assumptions. As far as I'm concerned though, I have given you reasons to drop the CA. Its not my business whether you do so or not.

Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause ---> First Assumption
The Universe BEGAN to exist ---> Second Assumption
The Universe has a cause ---> GRAND ASSUMPTION


Applying your principles, we get this

Whatever exists, has a beginning
(if) god exists
god MUST have a beginning

You can virtually "prove" anything depending on how far you are willing to assume. All you need is for people to blindly accept whatever you tell them.

I do not know if you were expecting me to copy and paste from different "sources" scientific or otherwise. I asked you to do some research earlier. I will only do that if I think it useful.

Here is what I wrote a few weeks back

jayriginal: DeepSight, sometimes you amaze me.

Many of your posts reek arrogance and I'm not trying to be mean.

I think you need to learn some humility.
Take my post in good faith, I dont mean any offence.
https://www.nairaland.com/878904/historicity-books-bible-reference-daniel/3#10280210

jayriginal: My problem with DeepSight and where I complain of his "arrogance" is when he says certain things like he is the sole custodian of knowledge. Should a "christian" do that, it wont strike me as unusual.

DeepSight does not strike me as a tolerant person (from reading his posts). Sometimes I read his posts and feel there is barely concealed contempt therein.
Of course these are just my impressions and they do not stem from this thread alone.

On the positive side, DeepSight is not to be counted as one of the foul mouthed personalities here. Also, I have seen some humour in his posts which I always count as a good thing.

All being said and done, I'd like to lay this matter to rest. No need to derail the thread any further and certainly no need to court controversy.
Its my opinion and I may be wrong, but I mean no offense. I just mean to criticize fairly and help him improve (if thats possible).
https://www.nairaland.com/878904/historicity-books-bible-reference-daniel/3#10283434

Mind you, I was not even a contributor on that thread, but just reading it, I felt obliged to say something to you about your "style".

And last year

jayriginal: @Deep Sight
Not so fast Barrister. I've noticed a tendency in your arguments to assume what you seek to prove.
https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9203966

jayriginal: @Deep Sight, you remember our discussion a little while back. I opined that you would do well to rid yourself of certain assumptions. These do nought but give a religious/dogmatic zeal to your "spiritual philosophy" as I would like to call it.


In the meantime, on this thread, nobody knows for sure (one of the questions I asked you on that is if you were certain of your position). I may as well ask here if you are absolutely certain that your musings are the infallible truth and you have perceived the nature of "God".
https://www.nairaland.com/770438/idea-god#9238955

You need to work on yourself. I'd advice you to change your username as well. You are not as deep sighted as you think you are. Bring some objectivity to the table and take your ego down several notches. You will improve after that I guarantee it. Stop arguing by assumptions. Just because something seems plausible does not mean it will survive intense scrutiny.

Martian: It seems whatever confirms your views is good science and what doesn't is false.

Deep Sight:
Naturally!

My first reaction to the above was to tell you I was no longer interested in the discussion. I decided however to give you a chance to explain that. If you made that statement in all seriousness, then there was absolutely no point in arguing with you in the first place.

Deep Sight: I hope this means that you now accept premise 1 to be correct.

No I do not. It is not at all clear that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause (though I can understand reasons for supposing so).

My dear brother. This issue is very simple. Everything that you see in existence naturally has some explanation (known or unknown). EVEN things that appear magical do have natural explanations. It may be true that the explanations at one point in time or the other may not be known by men, but by very simple commonsense there do indeed exist explanations for everything.

Brother, if you allow my editing, I have no quarrel with the above. It couldn't please me better to hear you talk about natural explanations. If you believe this, why insist on the supernatural ?

Now there is a reason that this is the case. I hope you understand the philosophical reality that it is impossible for a perfect illogicality to exist. As such, everything that exists naturally proceeds from a reason, a cause or a set of elements or factors that actuate such existence.

An illogicality ? Whats that ? We arent dwelling in the realms of mankind, we are going beyond that. Anything that tends towards the supernatural bears the seeds of "illogicality".

When something begins to exist the first thing you need to understand is that by very dint of such a beginning, the logical implication is that prior to that beginning such a thing did not exist in such a form or manner. What that means is that it was caused to begin to exist in such a form or manner for a reason, factor or cause. It is quite ludicrous to suppose otherwise: namely that a thing will suddenly, unbidden, without cause whatsoever, just magically appear from nowhere and for no purpose.

See ? This is why I didnt want to get into this in the first place. Brotherly, the above is a big assumption. You remember how you would assert that it would take omniscience to know that there is no god ? I assert here that it would take omniscience on your part to validate the above. Logic and common sense are not the same thing (I think). If you can tell me you know these things by omniscience, then maybe things would be different.

To be very honest with you I am struggling to be patient and I am rather shocked that one like you, who shows an inclination towards logic, could suppose that, or even faintly suggest otherwise. It is nothing but the most unreasonable fantasy.

In which case I would crave your indulgence (remember I stated this was a hopeless cause from the outset).
I cant help but note though that you are almost falling into that which impresses me least about you. Contempt !
I do not have to agree with you. Go check, I said I thought you deserved a nomination for religious poster of the year (even though I hardly agree with your views).
I suggest with humility, that you do not know everything. You simply apply your experience broadly and take it as an absolute.

It also becomes more tiresome in light of the fact that it is people just like you, who condemn religious fantasists for their fantasies: when they speak of magical appearances you laugh at them – and you yet make a mockery of your own mockery by suggesting something far more magical, voodooistic, and fantasy driven such as things appearing into existence without a cause! That is the height of black magic. You really need to take a deep breath and pause and ask yourself exactly what you are suggesting. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not suggesting anything other than the fact that you are not omniscient. For you see bros, I seek not to prove but to question. I allow for a creator no matter how faint I think the possibility is, but even at gun point, I will hold that the cosmological argument is inherently unsound.
It amazes me that you cannot see this and this I attribute this to your religious nature.
There is no mockery of mockery. I will not be force fed. I hinted to you earlier that god CAN NOT be proven by logic. All attempts must necessarily fail for more than one reason. God is simply an excuse or a cop out if you will. Life is complex therefore god. To make it stick, convoluted arguments are woven.
I bet you Deep Sight, if you will look at things objectively, you will see the gaping holes in the CA.

Yes, early man may not have sufficient knowledge about the atmosphere and space; but this is no reason to assert that we cannot know that things do not emerge uncaused.

It is a reason to assert that things that seem true may not be absolutely true.

As far as I am concerned, I will leave you a very simple test.

You claim to be a rationalist, a logic-driven person, right? Logic is driven by that which we observe everyday in nature and in the reality in which we live.

Now here is the test: I task you to point me to ONE SINGLE THING which we have observed in all our centuries in this world and in this existence – which does not have a cause.

The red speaks volumes and embroiders the point I have been trying to make. That which we observe is our reality, just as the early man's reality was "what goes up must come down". Today we acknowledge his reality and realize that there is more.
Deep Sight, if you are bold enough to assert that the Universe has a cause, then I take dressing from you and suggest the opposite. I put it to you that the Universe does not have a cause.

Now if you are unable to do so, it would simply mean that your suggestion is out of tune with common observation as far as we know, and mine is in tune with common observation as far as we know.

AS FAR AS WE KNOW. Your own words and I have no beef with that. If you can acknowledge that, I wonder why you cant see the problem with the CA.

If that is the case, until you show me the thing that has no cause around you, we will safely assume that you are the one dwelling on fantasy and ASSUMPTIONS whereas I am the one rooting his beliefs in reality as far as we know and can observe.

No Sir, this is no fantasy. You may be rooting your belief in reality "AS FAR AS WE KNOW AND CAN OBSERVE". I cannot begrudge you that. I will simply remind you that times back, as far as they knew and could observe, the world was flat. As in if you sailed too far into the sea, you would fall off the earth.
That was the truth as known and as observed.

We will leave it that simple: that is the test I leave for you: if you cannot show me such a thing, then you have no basis for suggesting that the universe itself may be uncaused.

I've done so. Since you have taken great liberties, I feel like I am entitled to take some too. However, assuming (without conceding) I wasnt able to, it still doesnt prove your claim.

As you can see from the above, you are the one imagining things.

Absolutely not.

I am the one basing my suppositions on observed reality.

Yup. I agree. I would have believed too if only for the fact that I know that I dont know everything. We have history and we know that truths that were once held as absolute have been replaced with "truer" truths which may in turn be one day replaced. And so, when I say science is not important to me concerning god, there you have it.

Observed reality is that things as we know them in this world, have causes. If you have observed otherwise anywhere, please show us. If you have not, then UNTIL YOU DO, you have NO BASIS for stating that the observation that things have causes is wrong. That would render you the one who is living in absurd fantasy and imagination, you know?

That is as eloquent as me saying to my younger brother that my fathers farm is the biggest and until he can show me a bigger farm, he has no basis for saying our farm is small. What happens if we arent allowed to wander ?
Look brother, if you will advance the CA as an argument, it says a lot. Its riddled with holes and the funny thing is we can go back and forth on this and never get to the part where you invoke the uncaused cause. The fun part is yet ahead.
Guess what else ? I havent seen a human heart before. Flowing from your curious logic, I have no basis for saying humans have hearts.

Did the big ba.ng happen or not?

I wasnt there. It has no bearing on my lack of belief. I keep an open mind.

Is eternity something or is it nothing?

Think about that.

I asked if something could really be said to be timeless.
If you consider my question, I'll consider yours. Deal?

Yes indeed, matter changes state. For this exact reason, matter cannot be said to be immutable. Matter is therefore not self-existent because self existent things are both immutable and intangible. As matter is not self existent, it must be caused. Simple, really.

Not so simple really. I did spot something interesting below so there I go

Energy is indeed eternal, and it is the primordial energy that coalesced into matter in the pre-ba.ng singularity. That in itself connotes an open circuit, and not a closed one, as far as the material universe is concerned. However I fear that I am leading you too far here. If you can deal with it though, we can discuss it.

First, feel free to express yourself. I went to garri school and not Kings College. When you go over my head, I will slow you down. There is no shame in learning.

Now please note the coloured. Then read the rest. How do you know this ? Omniscience is the only answer that will satisfy me.
There are other things I want to say, but I wont lest we gloss over these points. If we can settle these issues, I'm surely coming back here. We will not discuss it yet until we have done our plus and minus over these points.

Is the theory that things may emerge uncaused out of nothing a scientific theory?

Is it not ridiculously absurd?

I do not know if its scientific or not neither is that important to me. What I absolutely know is that the first premise is an assumption.

It is in line with common observation and the laws of motion. Your supposition to the contrary is not. Therefore as things stand, YOU are the one making unverified assumptions. It has not been verified anywhere that anything that we know of in this world and this reality commences existence without a cause or trigger, has it? Thus you, and only you, are the one with a truckload of unverified and very absurd assumptions, dear friend.

I make no assumptions. I simply point out your lack of omniscience. As I have shown you earlier todays "truths" may be discarded in lieu of new knowledge. The god you seek to prove has not been verified either. You are better off appealing to the "higher" nature of man or something of the sorts than to use logic to prove god. It cannot be done bros. This one no be by force. I appreciate your zeal but you are butting your head against a brick wall. If you've read King Solomon's Mines, the wall you are hitting is worse than the wall Gagool trapped Alain and CO in. You will get nowhere with this.
I could quote physicists, but it would appear you know better than them. Even if you did, it still wouldnt change my stance. You need to bring your certificate of omniscience to the table.


Now I'd like to tweak the CA just a little bit.

Whatever exists, has a beginning
(if) god exists
god MUST have a beginning

Using your same arguments, our observed reality shows that anything that exists has a beginning. It has not been verified anywhere that things that exist just existed suo motu. Now here is the test: I task you to point me to ONE SINGLE THING which we have observed in all our centuries in this world and in this existence – which exists without a beginning.
until you show me the thing that exists without a cause, we will safely assume that you are the one dwelling on fantasy and ASSUMPTIONS whereas I am the one rooting his beliefs in reality as far as we know and can observe
We will leave it that simple: that is the test I leave for you: if you cannot show me such a thing, then you have no basis for suggesting that the universe itself may be caused.
Now if you are unable to do so, it would simply mean that your suggestion is out of tune with common observation as far as we know, and mine is in tune with common observation as far as we know.

Observed reality is that things as we know them in this world, have causes. MY EDIT: (If we know god,there is a cause) If you have observed otherwise anywhere, please show us. If you have not, then UNTIL YOU DO, you have NO BASIS for stating that the observation that things have causes is wrong MY EDIT (including "god" ). That would render you the one who is living in absurd fantasy and imagination, you know?

It is in line with common observation and the laws of motion. Your supposition to the contrary is not. Therefore as things stand, YOU are the one making unverified assumptions. It has not been verified anywhere that anything that we know of in this world and this reality commences existence without a cause or trigger, has it? Thus you, and only you, are the one with a truckload of unverified and very absurd assumptions, dear friend.





Now I must admit that I find the below worrisome

Martian: It seems whatever confirms your views is good science and what doesn't is false.

Deep Sight: Naturally!

Care to explain ?

OLAADEGBU: You should have learnt that all those atheists wannabe are only intellectual schizophrenics and you better take it serious.

You are still talking ?
Seriously ?

mkmyers45: Dude what the heck is wrong with you? Just run into someone from a detention camp and you will know what is conscience. How the heck is rejecting God fighting conscience?

You will soon learn to stop taking Ola seriously.

Double Post

God is supposed to be all powerful and can do anything. This means for instance God can heal all the sick people in the world all at once.
By contrast, the barber is a mere human being who can only cut one persons hair at a time. His movement and strength are limited.
The analogy is terribly flawed as the disparity between god and the barber is so great that comparing them on the same level makes absolutely no sense.

Ptolomeus: It is not really a drink problem.

Oh no. I'm simply offering Wirinet a drink for an excellent post. Nothing wrong in that.

wirinet: Akwasi


Conscience can be manipulated by leaders of thought and by religious leaders. That is why a Muslim courting another woman feels no prick of conscience like a Christian cheating on his wife.

BEEYOOTEEFUUL !!!
Well said.
*shouts* "Barman, abeg ask this man what he is drinking".

A very good illustration methinks.

Deep Sight: Morning bro.

Good Morning (well it was morning when I started writing but as Im about to press submit, I see its afternoon now).

Yeah I hear you, but hear me too.

I'm all ears.

Man is indeed a higher animal - and that "highness" was supposedly attained through a process of evolution. That very process is a definitively competitive process in terms of survival. As such, we can moderately say that this may somewhat account for the obvious competitive instincts of man. If we look around the world without blinkered eyes, we will see the obvious malevolent manifestation of this everywhere and everyday. Intractable corruption that kills, and a shocking insensitivity to the common good. The instinct of selfishness and self-preservation STILL takes the lead in this world bro - just look around you and honestly tell me its otherwise.

You do have a point with the bolded.

Thus the more subtle instinct: that instinct and inclination towards unselfish love and the common good: this seems to me something that arises from a nature of man which is not evolution based. It resides in the spirit. Think about it, and honestly tell me I am talking nonsense.

Its not nonsense per se, its just that in your quest for spirituality, you attribute beauty, finesse, good, love etc to some higher level. I made the point that while man has crude instincts, he can and often rises above them. If man can think, he can distinguish between good and bad. So really the bad may not be bad for the particular man, but it may be bad for the larger society which he is a part of. He may thus refrain from acting in accordance with his base instinct. Its not just man, animals also feel love (or something like it). Animals form societies and they have rules. Animals have been known to ostracize erring members. Animals communicate. Animals trade. The point I'm trying to make is that man is a higher animal because he can think, he can emote and he can make informed choices.

The evolution based nature of man is wildly competitive. Brother go even maud im own brother for se.xual rights over a woman. That is the part of man that is evolution based. Perpetrate my genes. Survive. Dominate. Bro, that is our evolved nature, our evolution based nature. That surely cannot be contested? Hope you see where am coming from.

While I understand your point, it also illustrates the point I was trying to make.
Now what you wrote in the paragraph above, is part of what we were taught about evolution. Survive, dominate, perpetuate our genes and the most adapted and fittest individuals would live and continue the species.

Now let us examine our world today. We find out that the people who breed like jungle bunnies are for the most part among the poor (financially and educationally). Among the more educated folk, people plan their kids. Some do not even plan to have. Some even decide not to marry. Whereas all we would do then is boink and populate, now we know the effect of that on our world and we have invented contraceptives. Contraceptives would be against evolution it seems.
Since we moved out of the jungle and advanced as a race, the goals have shifted somewhat. I am not suggesting for once that we have lost all our evolutionary traits. I am only saying that they do not have such a hold on us as they did before because of man's advanced state of reasoning.

In times past, a man might kill another over territory without thinking it through. Today instead of killing or be killed we can go to court. Whereas once man lived by instinct, now he lives by reason (with influence from instinct).


Post Script:
It may interest you or you might have heard about it before. Long ago when I was "searching" I came across one spiritual/mystical book (I cant remember the name) that sought to guide me to re-awakening my dormant psychic powers. Among other things, it stated that man was once very psychically aware and could indeed communicate without speech. It gave examples of how this power is still at play but barely perceptible in humans today except under the right circumstances. It gave the forehead and the back of the neck as being the most powerful ESP signal senders and receivers. It gave the common example of thinking of a person or writing a person a letter when suddenly the person calls you or visits. Another example it gave was how you become aware that there is someone in a room with you even when the person has made no sound.
Then it gave different means for sending a message to another person as well as exercises for increasing your psychic abilities.
Needless to say, I place no value in this book (though I did at the time).

Many things that are attributed to ESP are simply cases of the subconscious picking up signals that our conscious mind doesnt. Many others are coincidences.
This is just an aside anyway.

Deep Sight: Its simple logic really. It doesn't say that everything that exists has a cause. It says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And that only stands to reason. A beginning of anything certainly requires a triggering factor. Otherwise exactly why would anything "begin." It is very unscientific and very illogical to contest that. The very business of science is to seek out the causes of phenomena, is it not?

Only a thing said to be timeless or eternal can logically be advanced as something that is causeless - for the simple reason that it does not change or move anywhere. If something as much as changes state, there must be a reason for that. This much we can rationally take to the bank.

Very good. Correction taken.
My question is still the same albeit with a slight modification.
My main point of interest now is premise 2 ie The Universe began to exist. Before that I will still ask you how you know that Premise 1 (Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause) is correct.
I gave you an example of an early man throwing things upwards. Surely to that man, it would be illogical to suggest that if he threw an object as far as possible upwards it would not return to earth. Infact, to that man, if he were of a creative bent, he may even examine the thought that it would take an exceedingly long time for the object to return to the ground, but no matter how long, it would still come down. This at that hypothetical time, would be an assertion that he could "take to the bank".
Now I need to know the source of your confidence because to me it seems you are evaluating things in light of your human/logical experience. That will not satisfy me. Remember I talked about assumptions being built into the CA ? The CA is composed entirely of assumptions.
Will you be able to satisfy me that you know these things (as opposed to "intuiting" them? ).

On to the 2nd premise, how do you know the Universe BEGAN to exist ? Were you there ?
If from your response above you clarified that it doesnt say that everything that exists has a cause (emphasis on begins), what we know for sure is that the Universe exists (or at least we think so). What we do not know is whether it BEGAN to exist. By my normal experience everything must have a maker/cause. I know enough to realise that not everything is as it seems. You on the other hand claim to know for sure what you cannot possibly KNOW at this point in time.
Its one thing to be persuasive, its another to be binding authoritative, and here you would have us take it on your authority that the Universe indeed BEGAN and has a cause (as well as the proposition that whatever begins to exist has a cause).
That Sir, will not stand. Seriously !

Also can anything really be said to be timeless ? I want you to think about that very carefully. It may be crucial in this discussion (or maybe not).

Deep Sight: My friend, this is simply trying to hard on the part of this person. The centre of his contention is the idea that the universe may not have had a beginning. I will tell you straight away why that is not consistent with pure philosophical logic.

1. Anything that does not require a beginning is thus a self-existent thing

2. Self-existent things are immutable

3. Matter is mutable and subject to change of state

4. Ergo, matter is not self-existent.

5. Ergo, matter, not being self-existent, must logically have a beginning.

6. Ergo, the Universe, being comprised of matter, has a beginning.

Now having said the foregoing I still need to point out that his presuppositions take nothing away from the cosmological argument even with the cyclical model - this is for the simple reason that the commencement of each cycle would still represent an event - a fresh expansion - which clearly cannot be uncaused. When we add this to the twin facts that (x) 1 - 6 above show that matter cannot be eternal in the past as it is mutable and thus not self existent and (y)the cyclical model is absolute speculation at this time - THEN it emerges that this in either event cannot be an argument that takes anything away from the Cosmological Argument.

Ok I may be wrong here but I believe matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. We cannot talk about matter without mass can we ? If it did not have mass it wouldnt be matter would it ? I also believe mass can neither be created not destroyed (same as energy).
If this is correct, your x 1-6 fails particularly 5.

I need to addittionally mention that it is particularly sad how scientists are quick to condemn speculations of non-scientific theorists, and yet advance adsolutely speculative theories themselves - such as the cyclical model - a completely unproven, and purely hypothetical idea - as a notion that should be taken seriously in contradiction of an argument that rests on such clear simplicity as established notions of cause and effect, as well as the self evidential laws of motion - which is what the cosmological argument rests on.

This then leads the so called scientists to produce damningly unscientific notions such as things emerging uncaused out of nothing - an idea which proper scientists should be the first to call out as pure fantastic and imaginary black magic.

This part I think you have wrong. One may speculate and then test. It is the way of science. You have to admit that some (not all) unscientific theories are inherently absurd. Some seem to present an epiphany but of what use is it if we all agree with the seemingly most logical assertion. We would nod to ourselves and that would be it. IGNORANCE. Heck, if you never questioned your beliefs, you wouldnt be a deist today. Therefore, when an assertion is made, regardless of the fact that it seems to be truth or the most logical, it still needs to be verified. In truth, the CA is nothing more than a bunch of unverified assumptions and I would still have said so science or not. Science has little bearing on my views as Ive sought to make clear on this forum. I do however place more trust in it than "god did it" explanations.

Deep Sight: As for the uncertainty principle - it has no bearing on, and does not unhinge basic logic on causation. People who think so are running ahead of themselves on an idea that they do no grasp.

Martian: You love [/b]to say this. People who disagree with you don't quite grasp whatever concept the discussion is about.
But you're right.

Seconded actually.

Deep Sight: Ha, are you being sarcastic. I be lawyer na.

I just will not be intimidated by scientific concepts because while my mates were scaling the wall in Kings College looking for women, I spent [b]all my time in the library reading up the Encycloapaedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopaedia. I am no physcist, but I will not be pushed around with false science.

Which begs the question, how do you distinguish false from real science. In my humble opinion its the extent to which your views are confirmed. The first step in knowledge is an admission of ignorance.
I maintain that you cannot possibly know that the CA is true. You simply intuit it.


EDIT:
I want to remind you that it was once logical to assert that the earth was flat. Its now illogical. What is conventional wisdom now may not be tomorrow.

Let me give another illustration, one closer to home.
Now suppose we imagine practice like 10 years back. Suppose you were seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent the adverse party from building on the land while the suit was pending. Suppose you came armed with an affidavit and motion to argue the injunction. Suppose the adverse party came with photoshopped pictures showing that no construction was in fact going on on the land. Suppose there is no provision for a visit to the locus in quo. Now ignore all the problems with this scenario and assume that this is normal.
Place yourself in the position of the judge. You came only with your affidavit and motion paper (forget frontloading for now) the other man came with his counters plus his photoshopped forgery. The judge will see "evidence" and most likely even if you are on the side of truth, the ruling will likely swing the other way. You may even be confused yourself

^^
Wrong. We think and are taught right from wrong. Man is a social animal. When you do something bad for a selfish reason, because you are a reasonable person, you soon feel remorse.
Do you like dogs ? It might interest you to know some dogs feel remorse too or if they dont, they know when they have been bad and it shows. Man can overcome whatever evolutionary instincts because he is not a slave to them. Whereas things may have been different in the past, now man can think and overcome his base instincts.
The so called conscience comes into play because man is a "higher" animal.

Dont be so quick to jump on any half brained theory because it seemingly supports your notion.

Heading over to Darwins Day now.

Deep Sight, here for your consideration, is part of a debate between William Craig and Professor Stenger

Cosmological Argument

Dr Craig argues that:

Whatever begins must have a cause
The universe had a beginning
Therefore the universe must have had a cause

Not everything that begins has a Cause

However, we know from physics that not everything that begins has a cause. Physical bodies begin to exist all the time without cause. Let’s consider radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, the alpha particle or beta particle or gamma particle that are emitted in a radioactive decay, those particles coming into being, come into existence, begin to exist spontaneously, without a cause. The beginning of the Big Bang the universe was like a subatomic particle, so these ideas could apply. Again, I can’t prove it but I don’t have to prove it. Here is one example that refutes Dr Craig’s claim that everything that begins must have a cause.

Is the Big Bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning?

But even if everything that begins has a cause, this does not necessary apply to the universe if the universe did not have a beginning. (MY EDIT: Just like GOD is made an exemption)

Dr Craig argues that the Big Bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning. However, the universe need not have begun with the Big Bang. And I’m not just talking about this one particular speculation from my book. There are many prominent physicists and cosmologists who publish papers in reputable scientific journals proposing various scenarios by which the Big Bang appeared naturally out of a pre-existing universe that need not itself have had a beginning. One such recent example is the Cyclic Universe.

Does an infinite universe have a beginning?

Dr Craig also claims that the universe had to begin because if it were infinitely old, it would take an infinite time to reach the present.

However, if the universe is infinitely old, then it had no beginning – not a beginning infinitely long ago. Furthermore, the universe can be finite – and I actually believe that the universe is finite – it can be finite and still not have a beginning.

The Universe can be finite and still not have a beginning

Einstein defined time as what you read on a clock. It’s a number, the number of ticks of the clock. We count time forward time: one, two, three, four, five ticks. We never reach infinitive time. We can also count time backward and never reach minus infinity. The notion that the universe had either a beginning or will have an end are theological notions, not scientific ones.
http://edthemanicstreetpreacher./2009/12/20/craig-stenger-transcript/

Note: You may wish to disregard the parts talking about time.
The point is made concerning the first two premises.

Strangely, there is this thing that a lot of folks must have heard about.

In its general form it goes like this; you discuss with a loved one or a loved one comes to meet you and then later departs from you. You may even see this person off, wave goodbye and all. Then you go back and continue your life. Shortly after, news comes to you that this person died yesterday. "It cant be" you proclaim, "he/she visited me today and I just saw him/her off less than an hour ago".
In other words, you have had full and meaningful interaction with a person who has been confirmed dead. In some cases, the person has even been buried.

I honestly do not believe these stories and I wonder why they are so rampant.

^^
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 ?

^^ You are tempting me.
Anyway, I think there is in one of the threads. It may not have been dwelt on extensively but I seem to recall it being mentioned. If its not in the Banom v Deep Sight thread, it may even be on a thread started by someone else. Those threads together give a picture of your ideology (except there have been some undocumented changes).

Anyway, let me tell you a bit about the video Mazaje posted. It appears to be a 3 part series. Mazaje seems to have posted the 3rd part and it runs for 18 minutes. The host of the video speaks quite quickly in order to more efficiently make use of his limited time.
He goes into many things and the kalam argument starts somewhere towards the end of the 6th minute. He then proceeds to use one minute (or less) to address it. He says it is multi flawed but for for the sake of brevity (apparently) chooses to address only the first flaw he finds. Thereafter he moves to the transcendental argument and other things.

The reason I am sharing this is so that you dont mistakenly walk away with the notion that the video was made to rebut the C.A.
There are other problems to the the C.A that will require explanations of an uncaused causer and so on as I explained to mazaje. The C.A has assumptions built into it. Take those assumptions away and theres nothing left.

Anyhoo, my lips are sealed for now. I must resist the temptation.

Deep Sight
This is what I mean when I say I'm aware of your ideas and standard replies.

Banom v Deep Sight on the Existence of God
https://www.nairaland.com/331016/banom-v-deep-sight-existence/1

Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God
https://www.nairaland.com/315294/atheists-empirical-reasoning-existence-god

The Oneness Of Infinity Explained
https://www.nairaland.com/377521/oneness-infinity-explained

Tudor, Krayola. . . On God Again.
https://www.nairaland.com/343779/tudor-krayola-god-again#msg4812998

The Essentials Of My Deism
https://www.nairaland.com/404066/essentials-deism

Deep Sight: ^^^ Alright. Gotcha. No worries.

But vitriol? Where? There has been no vitriol.

Maybe its my imagination.

There really should be a Legal Section in Nairaland. I've wondered about that myself.
MODS please look into it if you can.
Thanks

Deep Sight: ^^^ Jayriginal,

I thank you for transcribing - however you should understand that in light of your comments that "the cosmological argument is junk", and that there exist many rebuttals, you can see how it could be assumed that the rebuttal you transcribed was one you agreed with. Nevertheless - a statement such as calling the argument "junk" is a very weighty statement and you need to manfully defend such a statement. It wouldn't be worthwhile if i made similar statements and then stoutly refuse to give reasons for such statements. Thus I can only see in your reticence a fear of not being able to sustain the very bold assertion you made earlier, calling it "junk".

Its not a fear as you say, its more of an "I know where this will end up and I dont want to go there". In my initial statement, I didnt say it was junk, I said it had problems built in. You responded by asking "such as" and I said it doesnt lead to a valid conclusion.
Your next comment started the vitriol and in the spirit, I dismissed the C.A. as junk. I still do not think its a valid argument but you need to understand that comment in the heat of the moment.

Now I am not a shy person. Ideally I'd have asked you to open a fresh thread for it. However, I know your ideas and standard responses and quite frankly, what are we going to achieve ? In my current mood, I am simply not ready for another series of pages going back and forth plus I am running late on a project that will set me back about 80k if I do not submit on time. You notice that I said "especially not now" when declining the discussion. That refers to the pressure I'm facing and my current mood.

All I can imagine is a back and forth and at this moment, I'm not ready for that. Seriously.
Maybe later, but not now.

Deep Sight: There we are. I absolutely knew your reticence on this matter would only lead to very flawed understanding and presentation of what the cosmological argument actually asserts. As it happens, the transcript you have provided is little more than a caricature of the argument.

bla bla bla

So start again fella. I think you need to climb down your high horse in this matter as there is clearly no reason for you to be on one in the first place.

I already told you in the first place that I wasnt going to argue with you.
You should thank me for transcribing the relevant part of the video for you. I simply gave you as is and without more since you said that you couldnt watch it and since nobody transcribed it either. I didnt provide the video, Mazaje did. I also have not said whether I agree with it or not. You keep jumping the gun when I'm not even running with you.

Deep Sight: @ Jayriginal - in addressing this you need to prove to me that the cosmological argument refers to creation ex nihilo. If you cannot do that, your transcribed rebuttal collapses into a doomed black hole right from its very first attempt.

You have to show me that either of these equations is mathematically false, before you get on with the sarcasm.

Sarcasm ? Moi ? Au contraire mon ami, I dont have to do squat. I dont earn money here.

Deep Sight: So I hope you can already see that you are making grave presumptions. You seize upon an ill-thought out video rebuttal - a very poor attempt philosophically - an attempt absolutely lacking in depth or rigour, and you gleefully advance such to ME, as your rebuttal of the cosmological argument? That will not wash: its altogether a non-starter as you can see: the very first premise which he so woefully sought to rebutt remains firmly standing as a perfectly correct premise.

Why the 'ME'? Why the capital letters ?
YOU are the quintessential philosopher arent YOU ? The sole custodian of knowledge perhaps. Maybe YOU are god.
Maybe when YOU revise your style of argumentation, we can actually have one. Your whole response is a presumption and for someone who quipped about diligence and hardwork, YOU cant even recall that YOU asked for a transcription.


YOU need to come down from the clouds. Humility never hurt anyone before.

Transcript from the video (concerning the Kalam Cosmological Argument)

. . . aside from the evidential arguments for the existence of gods, various arguments have been proposed by some logic but I have yet to hear a single one that doesnt contain at least one fatal flaw.
We have the multi flawed kalam which falls down on its first premise.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The Universe begins (sic) to exist
3) Therefore the Universe has a cause
4) This cause is a god

The phrase begins to exist refers to creation ex nihilo; creation from nothing. This contrasts with creation ex materia; creation from pre-existing matter. The problem with proposing creation from nothing is that for a cause to be a cause, it has to act on something. To have an effect, there has to be something there to be effected. A cause acting on nothing to produce something, is a magical explanation.

When we ask how this god is supposed to have created the Universe, one word crops up repeatedly. It is said to have "willed" creation to happen and this bizarre assertion is presented as if it has explained something. It hasnt!
It makes no less sense to talk about "swimming" the Universe into existence or "laughing" it into existence.
"Willing" has no more been established as a mechanism for the creation of matter than any of these other verbs.

mazaje: Really. . .The arguments for good might sound logical, they have never been shown to be empirically verifiable. . .How many Gods created the universe and what did they use in creating the universe from nothing? provide that empirically verifiable evidence Mr deepsight. . . .

Get ready for unmoved movers and uncaused causes, leading inevitably to a oneness of infinity. Also get ready for 0+0=0, and 0+1=1
Voila, GOD !!!

Deep Sight: This simply sounds escapist to me.

If you say so.

Deep Sight: What a grand assertion, made without a single line of a rebuttal. You are very diligent and hardworking, sir.

You may say what you like. The point is that I am not willing to argue with you. Especially not now. Speaking of being diligent and hardworking, if you would do some research and cast aside your assumptions, maybe you would know better than to brandish the cosmological argument as the best for god. Infact, it is precisely this that makes me reluctant to argue with you.

Deep Sight: The existence of God is a logical and empirically verifiable construct.

No its not. No matter how many times you repeat it,it is not.

Deep Sight: Surely you can do better than this? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Sorry, but this is the most feeble response I have ever received to any argument on this forum.

I am really reluctant to go on another wild goose chase. I am pretty sure that you know about the cosmological arguments and the rebuttals. If I felt like there was a chance of teaching you anything, I'd happily delve into it.
As it is, we are probably going to end up going round in circles. The cosmological argument is junk. You may make a case for god, but you can hardly do it with logic.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Such as?

It does not lead one to a valid conclusion.

^^
Seen. Remember however, that Ola set out not to prove just a creator but a particular creator. The cosmological argument has its own problems built in.

.

.

Ola, I can see that you have accepted defeat. That is ok, but you dont seem to have learnt anything from our interaction. You have repeated again that information requires an intelligent sender. I refuted that earlier by telling you that even gibberish is information. "Fowl scratch" is also information. Think about it. Using DNA to prove "god" is a fail from the get go. I have told you that and you still persist. I waited for your "transcendental arguments" which never came.
I'll help you out.
Go here ---> https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=771933.msg9250000#msg9250000

I really was waiting for you but you never delivered. You prefer to go round and round. The way you argue, you seem like you are trying to convince yourself.
Not my wahala.
We will see on another thread.
Not before I help you with a few pictures though

Let me make one thing clear to you; I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD OR ANY SUPERNATURAL DEITY NOR IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Therefore, calling me a christian would not help your case.
Now,

OLAADEGBU:
You say you don't believe in God, believing that 'am not a Christian is not a big deal.  God doesn't believe in atheists either.

_________________|

OLAADEGBU:
The analogy fits "atheists" and since you are not one I'll drop it.

Nope. By virtue of not believing in god, I am an atheist. Period. Your analogy is bad because you are comparing something which cannot be proven with something which is very easily proven. The woman has obvious and regular attributes. There is nothing extra ordinary in her being a woman or having a name or any of the other attributes you want to bring into play. Your god on the other hand cannot be proven to exist. Its not the same thing.

OLAADEGBU:
This is a quote of yours admitting the possibility of the existence of a supernatural deity, this disqualifies you being an "atheist".  you are rather an agnostic which is different.

Cherry picking arent we?
Even if you call me a christian, I still do not believe in your god or any other. I've made that clear several times on this thread and elsewhere. Call me an agnostic if you like. Ive defined terms for you as simply as I can. An agnostic is an atheist. The only difference is that the agnostic has no active position. I do. NON BELIEF.
I see you are trying to run away from your brash claims. Maybe you should read the quote again and understand it.

OLAADEGBU:
You have already admitted that there is a possibility of there being a supernatural deity.  When you insist that you are an atheist you are actually attacking your conscience, not God.

How cute! This tendency of yours to make statements like the above. It is this that has left you looking for escape outlets for 5 pages now. You have elevated cherry picking into an art form. I guess you missed the part where I said I do not believe in any of the existing gods. Typical of you.

You have been squirming uncomfortably (possibly you regret your words). Simply accept defeat and move on. Its not the end of the world and even if it is, I'm sure you are "rapturable". 

Maybe I should refresh your memory

OLAADEGBU:
I can give you evidence for the existence of God and why there has to be a God.  I can equally prove to you that you are an intellectual schizophrenic, who knows of the existence of God but you are trying to convince yourself that you do not believe in God, this is also called an iterated belief.  [s]All those gods you mentioned up their are all going to meet their waterloo before the Judgment Day of the Lord.[/s]

Rather than accept defeat, you have sought to subtly shift the goal posts. I knew that would happen, hence

jayriginal:
I do notice an escape route you seem to be giving yourself though. I thought we were talking about your own god (of the bible) and not a generic "creator god". Do you want to prove the god you worship or merely that a god created this world ? I'm not bothered either way, but lets know what/who we are dealing with here.

Your reply was

OLAADEGBU:
When I say the Creator God I mean the biblical God, the Creator of heaven and earth.  He is the infinite God who is going to judge you by the Moral Law.

So although I have said clearly that I do not believe in intelligent design or god, even if I did believe in intelligent design or some deity (other than yours), it is irrelevant. Your task is to prove your god. Enough of the back and forth.