₦airaland Forum

Vick4rill:
u jst confirm it nw. so u guys are critcizing us cus we also do so?

Nothing should be above criticism and ridicule, These are important tools. so why should religion not be a subject to ridicule and criticize.

If science, politics, music and every endeavor of human projection or idea is subject to criticism.

then why not religion..

Criticism in a way illuminates reality, so why should religion be spared that light beam of criticism.

Having an ancient world view and belief in ancient myths and legends as truth in a 21st century deserves to be laughed over and ridiculed cus it is ridiculous.

asadike:
even ifa oracle, obama them, illuminati members, all of them are aware of a greater power. before u choose atheism, why not try secret cult or mysticism. If you say there is no God or greater power, my brother, u never jam, u are still a small boy, infact, u are a learner.

This is just a projection of your own fears... that bounding fear can only diminish the mind that accommodates it...

Let the jamming begin, lets walk the walk not the talk.

And besides mysticism or other spirity mumbo is independent of God(s)

Efewestern:
I can't help but to think someone can just wakeup 1 day and say there is no God is just so Abnormal.

@Johnydon22 i respect you alot, The thing you fail to realize is that God And religion are two different thing, God Is Enternal, Religious is man made ... So attributing the flaws of religion to God is not right.

Believe me there are forces in this world, Go ask aged people, i pray you don't learn the hard Way.


Happy new Month bro & Sis.
Thanks be to God for the gift of a new month.

Not really God(s) and religions are not the same though mostly religions are the oil by which God(s) are eaten.

The notion of God(s) was coined through speculative assumption, rationalization of ignorance through superstition and a projection of human fears and vulnerability.

Until such an idea is thrown a light of empiricism such a notion does not deserve to be treated as a truth rather should be confined within the realm of imagination where it lurks.

That's why to believe in God(s) you must first throw away the need for empirical substantiation and in so doing evade reason in order to exercise 'Faith' which in essence is blind and dishonest.

I do not have such a luxury as 'faith' to believe ideas as critical as God(s) it should be based on something more tangible than that.

Thanks brother

SidL:
Very well then. First of all don, love your work!



Upon what premise have these conclusions been drawn? Are they facts, opinion, or theory?

These are based on observed facts...

example: You are used to the notion of Cause and Effect but in a quantum field particles has been observed to pop in and out of existence without any influence or cause.

You are familiar with the first law of motion: A body at rest will continue at rest and a body in motion will continue in motion at a given direction and speed unless acted upon by an external force but in the quantum world subatomic particles has been found can be induced to speed up almost to the speed of light all by themselves without any external force added.

And also Quantum entanglement, Two particles at very long distance from each other behaving like it's just one particle in two places. . . Information are passed between them faster than the speed of light that when you make one particle spin at a given direction instantaneously the other does the same.

The laws of Physics you are familiar with in this macro state are all turned upside down, man still cannot place his hand on the quantum laws (how things should happen) that govern the microbile world.

I told someone the other day maybe we are used to how things should be done that we are always looking for 'how things should be done' therefore making some eventualities elusive to us, what if the only laws of the quantum state is 'there are no law' then we will spend eternity searching for laws that are not there.

well fingers crossed we can always not know what we'd find the more we look

Vick4rill:
they sound like they are intelligent when they are nting bt confused set of people... if truly God does nt exist why are they so eager to prove it? why dnt they jst leave us to wallow in our senselesness until we realise that we are chasing after the wind... it seems that they are doubting their so called logic, that is why they keep judgeing others to feel better. seriously with the use of logic and so called scientics achievement. the world is still worster than it was before. sickness, poverty,crime, hard ship still exist. so what makes atheist better than the christains they are critcizing? ur been atheist did nt reduce anytin frm God. he has billions of people who are better than u in all ramification worshiping him. so if u choose to be atheist do it quietly and allow others do theirs.

You sound more like you are mad at the atheist simply because they challenge your beliefs and argue against it.

Let me be very clear "Nobody is trying to disprove your God" the Onus is actually on the reverse here.

You have your beliefs, you are free to express it and let it out but why then do you feel the need to deny others the right to express their own opinion over it since it directly affects them as a virtue of it's position as an idea of human construct and has a direct effect on the society.

Any idea, coercion or belief directed at the public is the business of every member of this public.

So do not be mad at the atheist or beg that they leave your religion alone only you can do that by leaving the world alone with your beliefs.

But if you keep blaring it on the world then stop complaining about the stinging whips of criticism, scepticism, ridicule and scrutiny.

analice107:
If what is saying is true, then let him engage Christians. It's not enough to revile but won't answer when challenged.
Joagbaje opened a thread as a rebuttal to him, he has be evading it ever since, why?
Truth hurts, we know, but until you can ascertain what truth is, you are still lost.

Stop taking the world too serious, its way too short to be working one's self over such trivial stuffs as beliefs.

Life is more than that.

the sun rises and sets as always, it's this over seriousness that always tends to overcomplicated the whole process for us.

Julianyao:
Einstein believed in Spinoza's god i.e Nature. In one of his letters that was found recently, he professed his disbelieve in a god. BTW, he's not the greatest of all time.

NATURE is everything. There is mass, energy, atoms, molecules, life,
thought, people, societies, galaxies and perhaps even multiple universes
(pure speculation). But there is nothing outside nature, including spiritual
visions and other phenomena we don't yet understand. If they exist, they
are part of nature.

Spinoza asserted that for a concept of god to make any sense at all, it
must simply be nature. That is, god cannot be something outside nature
that controls it, but must necessarily be part of it. According to Spinoza,
God IS nature.

Spinoza's God simply put is that from the smallest strings to the atom up to large stars and extra-large stars and possibly universes if there exist many or any other weird manifestations of nature yet maybe elusive to us.

That all are within the confines of nature.

And if something can be defined as God then certainly that should be nature which implies that everything You, me, trees, ants, planets, galaxies everything are all unit bits of the part of God and all in unity is God.

Floor still Open to more questions and topics for discussions.

Why do Christianity always by itself make a mockery of itself..

HardMirror:
Hehehe.
Baby here you go again, here you go again,
Making me love you...
Well done jare. Jesus needs all the help he can get from us humans. We must not let christianity die

LOL

Inviting more great minds to our discussion Cc. Sarrassin, SonOfLucifer, ValentineMary Joseph1013, JackBizzle

davien:
There is nothing like nothing

Damn!!! That sounds really weird ....

Maybe it should be like this "There is always Nothing but this nothing always has a 'thing' therefore nothing is always 'something' in essence.

donnffd:
I agree to an extent, it is possible that its all human preception, but in some fundamental way you cant deny the duality of existence. Its either something exists or it doesn't.
There is a physicist who likened nothingness to a line graph, she said the she doesnt think there is anything like nothing because 0 is still a point in the line graph.

My take on it is, remove the line graph completely and what do you have, the non existence of it, absolute nothingness...so even if nothing can be a human perception, it still follows the laws of logic and is a valid question to ask.

I dnt know if i am making any sense?

I am absolutely getting your point but i think the physicist explains it better ...

To further mischievously stretch it "Remove the line graph and you are still left with the platform on which the line was drawn"

I think to cap it all i don't think we even know what "Nothing" is, can or should be

To further yank it in a philosophical mesh up. . . 'Existentiality' is the state of being and if "Nothing" exists other than "something" then "Nothing" becomes "something" by the virtue of it's existiantiality.

So the actuality of "Nothing" nullifies it's self...

donnffd:
Hi johnydon22, nice thread n discuss so far

I want to dwell on the matter of nothingness, it has bugged me for ages. When i mean nothing,i mean no space, no time, no energy...

imagine a table with nothing on it.....


Ok, cool store that memory

Now imagine a balloon on that table, that balloon is the universe and all there is.
Amazing right?

Now go back to the previous memory of nothingness...you see how hard it is

So wat i am trying to say is, why is there something instead of nothing, and if nothingness really doesn't exist like davien said, but if thats true, then what is the opposite of something...

I do have a hunch on the matter sha but lets hear your view

I think in this case human perception comes into consideration... Now since HUMANS gave their own definition of what "Something" is in contrast to what "Nothing" is.

This definition one can notice is totally a surface scratch to the quantification of the actual reality of things.

Like the E.g i gave with an empty cup..

To the person percieving the image of the cup it appear to have "Nothing" in it but wheras in actuality it is filled with "something" (air molecules).

So maybe our definition of "Nothing" is really not the opposite of "something" since it can be inferred that "Nothing" to us is simply "something" we can't or may not yet yet percieve at a basic level.

So if there really isn't such a thing as Nothing then i'd say that the answer to the question Why is there something and not nothing? should then be

"Cus there is never such a thing as 'Nothing'"

And if you then ask the opposite of "Something" then we'd have to revisit the definition of nothing to tally with the widening eventuality of the state of existence.

And we can conclude then that "Something" has no opposite since the supposed opposite may not even in actuality exist.

Decker:

You are hitting hard bro, keep it up and keep it straight... Nice Job

cloudgoddess:
Notice that the responses from theists so far have mostly fallen into the following three categories:

1. False persecution complex. "Why are you angry mean atheists attacking Christianity, we didn't do anything!" Basically a tactic to divert the conversation and avoid or discourage any criticisms of their beliefs.

And it ignores the tremendous impact that Christian agendas have not only in Nigeria but worldwide. If any other institution was so powerful, and a small group of people uncovered it as a fraud, it would only be natural for them to be vocal about it in hopes to enlighten the masses.

Also, no atheist is calling for the forceful extermination of religion. We're calling for the opening of minds. Critical thinking. The thousands of ex-Christians and ex-Muslims that are made every year walk out willingly when they realize the falsehoods of religion. No one puts a gun to their head (or threatens them with ideas like eternal punishment).

2. Blatant insults targeting the characters of atheists as people. Another diversion tactic, as well as a rather elementary defense mechanism. And as I've pointed out in prior posts, there is a considerable amount of research that points to humanists & secular societies actually being more peaceful, more innovative, and less tribalistic. So said insults are not just petty but completely unfounded.

3. Played out apologetics. The same tired excuses theists use again and again to try & defend the indefensible. Sounding eerily like victims of domestic abuse, making all sorts of excuses to defend their abuser which appear clearly inadequate to outsiders looking in, but totally valid to those still within the abuser's mind control.

There is a limited number of arguments & apologetics a theist can put forward before they're uncovered as empty again and again. When that happens, all that's left for the theist to resort to are insults & deflections.

OP this is a great thread and your arguments are straightforward & hard hitting. Keep it up.

Very glaring . . . I advice the OP to keep his straight forward arguments without resorting to the insults and other demeaning argumentative flaws the theists are employing here.

People are reading and i have no doubt people no an unfounded slander, ad hominem and plain idiocy when they see one.

davien:
Sadly that's the fate of any thought-provoking scientific topic posted in the religious section..

Which is rather why i always suggest people post these topics in the right section...

Science is the most trusted means of human deductions so there is an intimidating shadow it casts to other conflicting ideas more so on ones held on to by faith and can be rather traced to the beginning of man's quest to understand the world he found himself.

Most basic beliefs, myths, superstitions were products of man's first venture into enquiry of what is before him.

Science (Natural Philosophy) to these early humans had a very religious and spiritual significance.

But we have severed that reconciliation since it encourages deductions be based on emotions and that has rather driven animosity between Beliefs towards science who mostly perceive it as an adversary.

davien:
It's just crazy...

Nature is far more crazier than we can ever imagine

davien:
Thanks, I just saw Cloudgoddess' topics on evolution... didn't really know she did them extensively.

I would have preferred if she posted it on the Science section other than the religion section.

the animosity such conflicting ideas create in such brews contempt and makes it seem as am adversary to their belief other than a piece of scientific study.

and if you watched closely instead of a good discourse it was only met with emotional yapper and an unrelated pseudoscience as a supposed rebuttal.

davien:
Johnny I don't know if you could make a topic on biological evolution in the future after this one... so that you can educate those with common misconceptions and point them to the thread...

Every aspiring or established scientist always have an area of specialty ... Mine is mostly On cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics..

I have a basic knowledge of Evolution but There are giants in biology that dwarfs my grasp of the subject, i think Cloudgoddess, donnffd can do it justice far better than i can.

ValentineMary:
Am skeptical about the ecistence of white holes. Since at d heart of a black hole, space and time seize to exist. How come matter still find a way to leave through a white hole CcJohnnydon22

Whiteholes even though still theoretical are not necessarily same as a basic blackhole.

In the formation of a blackhole a core of intense Mass (singularity) collapse denting space/time infinitely into a gravitational well.

But in a case a spinning singularity collapsing, the dented space/time will however warp around the spinning singularity thereby creating tunnel of warped space/time. (Wormhole)

And since now it is a tunnel there must then be the other end of the tunnel ... So a whitehole is the other side of the tunnel.

You can call it a negative blackhole.. everything is pushed out rather than pulled in

krazykoons:
but it is speculated that the bosons gives matter their masses not forgetting "matter" with its effects on space and the universe at large

There are two theory models of mass generation...

-Gravitational models
-And gravity free model. (Bosons falls under this)

davien:
True.. but one thing that's thrilling to me is the subatomic world seems almost fantasy-like but it's responsible for our cause and effect everyday universe.

Exactly... the quantum world to me is a distinct universe of it's own. . . We might be looking for parallel universe outside this but maybe it is already staring at us in the form of the building blocks of ours.

Here are two parallel worlds.

-The macro world is a world where things are governed by the laws of physics.
-the quantum world is so different that it turns all the laws of Physics prevalent in this macro state upside down but yet is the foundation of the macro world.

Cause and effect doesn't tie the quantum world down but yet rules in the macro world.

Here is a state of ruling laws of physics that was build on a state that faults these laws.

It's a progression and evolution of nature, going from the lawless quantum spooky part accumulated to become a physical part that is driven by the physical laws of it's contents.

davien:
I often imagine that the smallest thing in existence may be so weird we'd never be able to comprehend it even if we saw it.... or even in another plane or dimension so weird it'll turn our heads upside down..

I think it so too but i doubt if we ever going to be able to see it at all since it is almost not there if you judge from the dimension of our size level.

davien:
What about the empty space between the individual atoms of air, that-is from the electron to its nucleus.... the atomic radii.

It's 99% of the entire atom yet atoms make up everything we see.. doesn't this mean we are only experiencing the 1% of reality?

That is where it gets weirder. . . Maybe beyond our perceptions of the fundamental blocks there are even smaller chips behind them to which we are blind to, matter of size this time.

our experience of what is might even be far more smaller than that figure

I am of the opinion that nature evolved from this most fundamental level to this

And bonus question Is that space really empty?

I doubt

krazykoons:
what effects could they have with space and energy,because it seems the higgs bosons little and physical insignificant they may seem have the high irregularities of vaccum energy
cc johnydon22

There are four basic forces known in the universe (whether there is a fifth remains with a broad question mark ??)

and these forces are.

Strong Nuclear force ----- Fundamental particle is Gluons

Weak nuclear force ------ fundamental particle is W and Z boson

Electromagnetism ----- fundamental particle is Photons.

Gravity ----- Fundamental particle is gravitons.

The bosons are responsible for the weakest interacting forces in the cosmos..

davien:
Hmmmm... I've read that the multiverse having every set of universe could arise from quantum fluctuations making every possible configuration of existence possible...

But why does empty space have quantum fluctuations? ... could it be a mere property like the four sides of a square or an emergent property of something else, an exotic phenomenon perhaps?..

This begs the question, Is empty space really empty?

And what if by saying Empty we are neglecting the fact that this space may be something……

This is just like an empty cup is it really empty?

Nope it is filled to the brim with air molecules.

krazykoons:
can we say vacuum energy is the same as the highs boson or God particle

High's boson particle is a fundamental particle of force lurking deep in the quantum dimension deep within the microscopic world.

standard model defines the Higgs particle as a boson with no spin , electric
charge , or colour charge .

It is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost instantaneously..

The macro state is built from tiniest most simple, weird and basic fundamental particles.

Highs Boson particle is just one of those fundamental particles

krazykoons:
energy fluctuations in vacuum?
a space entirely devoid of matter,energy is form of matter

Yes energy is not matter actually rather matter is a form of energy but both are relative.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change from one form to another" matter may be destroyed but the energy within cannot.

So in a vacuum there is no matter..

So when i talk about this lowest energy frequency, i am referring to a very low energy frequency that might have through the course of it's slow and consistent evolution reached the point to be the universe as we know it now.

davien:
I'd like to discuss on space, space being the phenomena that permits objects to be located in a reference towards others... It is virtually endless,yet began with everything else...
I do have ideas that space might be a remnant of the source of physical existence itself,after all without space nothing could go into any thermodynamic state or exist atall.

And another is,could it actually be foolhardy that non-existence is in reality impossible... as a complete nothingness is unattainable by any mass or massless body?

I also hold this position that there cannot or was there ever absolute nothingness.

But if space began at a point then musn't there also be a platform unlimited and boundless too but distinct in characteristic necessary for space to expand?

This leans towards bubble universe with inter-universal space in between them.

SirWere:
Shuo!! First to comment. Today na my day oooo

Let me start with a basic one :

It is said that there is a massive blackhole in the "core" of this milkyway galaxy. If so, how is it this galaxy is still "standing" (figure of speech) Shouldn't it be destroyed by now

the reaches of a blackhole is actually very limited to it's event horizon, so the galaxy is pretty much very safe.

Also, talking about Blackholes. How do we know they exist since they trap light. I mean, how do you detect something you can't see

-Gravitational lensing
-behaviours of other objects in contact with a blackhole.

For example when studying to find if there is a blackhole in the center of the galaxy, telescopes were focus to the core for weeks and months studying the behaviours of the objects.

The stars in the center seemed to have a very weird and hazardous behaviour, there were all orbiting a point that seemed to be nothing but still had an enormous gravitational effect on them.

With strong elliptical orbits they would speed up on nearing this point of seeming nothing and hauled back through their orbit back again.

these elliptical orbits all stretch through different directions for different stars but all orbited a common center of Mass that appeared as nothing..

it was the calculated behaviour expected from objects orbiting a blackhole.

That confirmed the existence of a massive blackhole in the core of the milky way.

krazykoons:
what was before the universe began?

This is a very delicate question and i'd start by saying Nobody is certain about it yet ..

Some hold that there was nothingness and a vacuum and quantum fluctuations in this vacuum gave rise to matter.
But since Vacuums represents the lowest level and i mean the lowest lowest of energy frequency it cannot be called Nothing then in my own opinion.

So I'd say Energy is my best shot to answering this but this energy must have been at a very miniscule frequency.

Dark Energy some may call it.

But i'd like to also add that if this energy was before the Universal and is directly the interacting value for the causality of the universe then this energy is also the universe.

so can then rephrase this question to what was before the universe as it appears now

which then will be "Energy at a very low frequency [/b]