₦airaland Forum

Tetehjewels:
You are hell bent on making this a God thing but my post isn't.

No. I'm not.

When you say Something or someone outside the universe

Someone = definition of God
Something = another cosmos, universe.

You can substitute the word "God" on that my comment with "something/someone" the argument remains the same.

My post is more about the big bang theory and origins of our universe and how the law of conservation of mass cancels it out as rubbish. Yet many scientists still believe that is how the universe began.

You are doing a bang of job.

This is not a comparison between the non existent multiverse and God. Get it straight please otherwise you will continue arguing erroneously

Oh no it is not, it is the self refuting position of arguing that a multiverse theory is surely false because it is deductive rather than inductive then presents another deductive speculation that you somehow believe must be truer.

See, it is either something that isn't inductive is completely false, in this case both multiverse theory and your 'something/someone' are completely false.

Or deductive can also have an element of truth, in this case, you would have no basis to say either the multiverse or your 'something/something' are completely false.

You can't have it both ways, it's self refuting

Tetehjewels:
Read my post again and clear your wrong perception.

All i did was try to rationalize scientific laws using words from the Bible which match it totally. I did not ask for an experimental falsification of "that thing". I rather asked for proof scientifically since a known scientific law refutes the big bang

And in doing so, you employed the use of deductive approach to problems which is the same basis from which multiverse theory is reached.

If by your assertions on this thread, anything that isn't inductively derived (scientific, empirical) must be false then on what basis would you then have us agree that your argument which is purely deduction isn't simply false as you yourself seem to have shown?

Tetehjewels:
You seem to be a hoarder of assumptions because all i see above are truckloads of assumptions and wishes you hoped were true.

This is non sequitur

When i say something/someone outside our known universe influenced it does it have to be a universe? All i said was SOMETHING/SOMEONE

Yes. But you are forgetting that another universe is something.

So, how can you say something/someone is outside our universe at the same time typically sure that there isn't another universe?

Saying [something/someone] must be outside this universe is no different from saying there are other universes, because both assertions fundamentally are saying there must be more than just this universe.

Two of your positions are self refuting.

You are here with the same multiverse balderdash.

Lmao. I'm not, I'm here to show you how your positions refute each other.

They imagine a closed number of multiverses because that is the only way they can try and rationalize their theory even though it still fails. Good thing you also admit it is an imagination hence a work of fiction.

It fails - Without showing how.

But something must be outside this universe though. Lol.

Finally if you read my post you would realize i never implied belief being a factor to anything. I asked for scientific clarity and as you know, science isn't based on beliefs.

Oh, you implied belief factors into something and here are your exact words

" Our universe is closed because nobody believes in a multiverse including the scientists"

Tetehjewels:
You are now mentally flailing. The multiverse theory is simply science fiction and cannot be scientifically falsified. This means it cannot be proven via scientific means if it is true or not.

Once this is the case, then it is not a scientific fact and only just the wishes of a mind filled with fiction. End of discussion!

Is that thing as you mentioned above that is outside the universe that must have caused the universe scientific?

Can that thing be empirically observed and experimentally falsified?

Tetehjewels:
I am already aware of the Multiverse theory and its generally known as a farce and this is because the entire theory is 100% unscientific. It is all built around imaginations and fiction. Science deals with facts and the multiverse has no fact in it. NEXT!

cc samjohnnyB

Multiverse is a product of deduction not induction.

Guess what else is derived through deduction? Yes. You guessed well, God.

Your argument above is deduction not induction.

If you invalidate the speculation of multiverse as false because it has no inductive basis (empirical) you automatically invalidate your argument above and your believe in God as farse because they just like the multiverse idea are deductive not inductive.

Don't kill your own argument with unguided confident assertions as this.

Tetehjewels:
Our universe is closed because nobody believes in a multiverse including the scientists.

Nobody believed other galaxies before (Called island universes) including scientists.

You seem to be implying that belief has any bearing on whether something exists or not.

I don't need to tell you how flawed that argument is.

That theory is a dead duck theory and they all know it. This is the only universe there is and for this to exist

You don't know that

something from outside it which was not a part of it "caused" it to be and that explains why that "thing" can influence this universe but cannot be influenced or changed by either its influence of this universe or by the influence of this universe against it as it were.

Up there you said this is the only universe to exist, then right here something outside the universe must have caused it.

Another universe is outside this universe.

So, how do you marge an argument that states something outside this universe must have caused it and the argument that there isn't any other universe but this?

The only way you would buy into an open universe is if we have a multiverse but sadly we do not

This statement is false.

Infinite number of closed universes can simultaneously exist without having any observational consequence on one another.

In fact, every hypothesis of multiverse never imagines and open system but rather closed systems.

WTF? how is this even a thing?

elated177:
What is this thread about, johnydon22?

Read it again

Why did you open it?

Humor/Joke/Mockery

MuttleyLaff:
I hope I can locate this YouTube video I watched a couple of months ago. It's about a paraplegic describing having sexual pleasure and this is someone not feeling anything from the waist down, meaning he has no means below the waist for having physical sexual pleasure sensations.

Above the waist up?

hakeem4:
Yes they are suffering physically but not sexually and emotionally

Sexual pleasure is a physical pleasure. So, you are saying they are experiencing pleasure and suffering at the same time?

elated177:
What is this thread about, johnydon22?

The questions are related to the premise of your thread.

I had to look at the OP again. Nope. Don't see it.

There isn't any correlation.

Just answer them, johnnydon22.

I'm still interested in knowing the connection with the OP

EmperorHarry:
The conundrum tho would be,whether it's really suffering if at some point it becomes nonexistent..Zooming out kinda perspective

Elaborate. I don't seem to get it.

hakeem4:
well this is a very tough question this is turning to philosophy.

Well, that's the idea.

With my basic understanding, suffering is basically when we feel pain either physically or emotionally

Interesting: I have a question.

There are type of people who derive pleasure from pain especially sexual pleasure, I believe it is called BDSM.

So, at the point they are inflicting this pain, they are obviously experiencing pain, are they also suffering?

Analogy: Imagine you borrow your best friend all your life savings and the person promises to return the money on a particular. Just for you to find out that he died a day he was supposed to return the money.

there would be two reasons why you will shed tears
1) Your best friend is gone
2) your money is gone
This is the best analogy i can give considering suffering

Hahahaha thats good enough. I believe there is a problem above requiring your attention. Lol

budaatum:
Me too! Though the suffering is his own and I don't suffer at all myself. I pity him for suffering so much, is more accurate, and just hope and pray he finds a cure. No one deserves to suffer like he does except the devil itself, I suppose.

I'm reserving my opinion on op, as promised.

Reserving your opinion?

budaatum:
Drooopy tits. As in tits that extend way past my belly button and so are longer than a dik. Your's though is special, and I dare not compete, johnydon, though I think you think I do, compete with you, that is, despite my continous pdas to the contrary. I hold you in the highest regard see. Even my Lord does not question like you do as his laziness in seeking kicks in far too soon like he's to afraid to know!

Unlike most on here, you are "question! question! question!", intending to make one think. And then you hit buda who has already been thinking. Makes me feel guilty when I respond to your threads and seem to take them over. But how can I possible not respond to the most thoughtful threads on here? I should perhaps wait a bit and let them develop, so please accept my most profound apologies johnydon. I shall try to resist in future.

Its a Nigerian thing to assume understanding, is what I have found and laugh. The biggest book most have come across is the Holy Bible, but surely readers know how difficult it is to get through such huge books. And then, its not as if we read it properly at all with most having jumped around in it long before they become competent enough to read it from beginning to end without missing a single word along the way. Imagine reading Thing Fall Apart the same way most read their Bible. Could it possibly be understood what 'Things' are and how it is that they 'Fall Apart'? Then imagine someone who badly jumped around from page to page explaining it to non-readers. Then you, my Lord, and most of us argue with such ignorons! I'd likely laugh if the true ignorons were not we unbelievers. If we weren't ignorant we'd likely understand that one believes only because one does not know, and what merit is there in doing what satan does? Is it not written that one should first seek the Kingdom of God? And do you all think it means go looking for some Kingdom place or God thing? Is it not just biblespeak for "Seek to Understand"? It's meant to be within, you know, and is found through Jesus Christ, which is just another way of saying "Found in the Word" (or Logos, if you go Greek). And what else are we all on here but seekers of understanding of the many words we read? Except that words have a way of creating an [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1%3A12&version=NIV]Apollos - Paul dichtomy[/url]. And what we get to read from Paul himself, a pinch of salt!

Yes, it's why I love here so much. We deal in words, see, that through which all things are created, and through which we exchange understandings. We might not know it now, but sometime in the future our words would have created something. Just no one be surprised when Seun becomes God, the Creator of the Nigerian Thinking Universe!

If anyone does not understand buda please ask buda questions. And if anyone feels like I'm always open to a "one on one debate". But be specific. "Explain" might not always cut it as it does not in anyway show that you are capable of understanding, though I might still oblige, and the explanation just further befuddle as this explanation likely might. Just mind the two boxes of gender and age that buda never gets into and on which I will lie! And do not ever believe a word I say! You got a brain in your own head after all, so use it to think and consider and know!

And p.s. Before anyone accuses the explanation only seems to confuse further, buda is ever so guilty as charged and as already admitted above.

See what I mean? Epistle.

I don't know what is wrong with me, seems like I have typing fatique. Feel so tired to continue typing especially long replies.

I still can't help but open threads that demand I type long epistles but I can't.

Suffering is a word we are all familiar with. I dare say that, it is a concept we are all familiar with in principle and in reality.

But, are you sure we do?

Do we know what it means to suffer?

What causes suffering?

And how to recognize suffering?

Let me hear your opinion on this, what does it mean to suffer?

Examples?
Analogies.

Explain what suffering means, how it is recognized and how possibly it can be stopped.

elated177:
Johnnydon22, what causes thunder and lightning in the sky? Which one precedes the other?

Is this question related to the thread? I don't understand.

HappyPagan:
Are you okay? This is Nairaland... When did depth make front page?

Aaaah I forgot. Seems I kinda imagined myself as a moderator for a second

budaatum:
You know you will be my first Johny, though you'd be given way to by my Lord whom I fear! (Or should that have been the other way round my Lord?)

We need to get beyond the language barrier though, since we seem to not currently understand each others words and mine rub you the wrong end, I think. And it would have to be far beyond the sort of dik waging done by the person who called me out in this thread, as not many appear capable of withstand my excessively drooopy tits!

I never seem to understand you at all. You have clever ways of using words that cloud them.

Drooopy tits

jesusjnr:
It seems I have to pause my ignore mode for a bit because when it comes to sickness, there are no enemies.

So it's good to know that you are feeling a little better, and i hope you'd be back to your full strength by the end of this week.

Though don't fail to keep me updated concerning this, so I can revert to my ignore mode once more.

God bless.

We are looking for a way to spice this Religious section again.

Would you be willing to do a one on one debate?

budaatum:
Hmm. Perhaps I wasn't I guess. Had a break part of that time. Over the years though I find we wax and wane and evolve over time and since the elections things have somewhat died down.

Perhaps time to bring back personal challenges.

People used to open a thread to call out who they want to debate one on one.

budaatum:
How dare you miss out atheist buda in this list?


Was buda not the most atheist of all atheist?

You weren't that active during that time

donpedro11:
If you still believe in the story of Adam and eve, and that all humans on earth today came from them, you surely don't have your thinking cap on your head.

Admin move to FP

Your OP lacks the depth deserving of Front Page

tartar9:
Is controlling your thought(thinking) independent from the processes in the brain?

That is a problem I am hoping we can discuss.

How can mind (effect) control processes in the brain (the cause)

True control is an illusion; Thoughts generated and their control are all processes in the brain.

So, we have no control whatsoever over our thoughts or minds? We just believe we do (which should also be due to an uncontrollable reactions going on in our brain)?

LordReed:
I mean the concept 1 and 2. You don't go somewhere to harvest 1 or 2 or dig it out of the ground.

The objective substance they are describing do not have that label naturally occurring.

1 and 2 is abstract.

But, it won't exist without the substance.

EmperorHarry:
Consciousness is a product of the chemicals and neurons in the brain according to certain naturalists.I use certain,because although it is a widely speculated assumption,it hasn't been verified scientifically. So it's still very much an assumption but a metaphysical naturalist would most likely favour this assumption.

Consciousness is a product of chemicals in the brain. Right.

The brain is the cause, the consciousness is the effect if the words of this naturalist is taken into consideration.

Let's continue.

Now,consciousness in varying degrees holds the ability to rational thinking and as such it doesn't discredit naturalism.Rational thinking doesn't debunk naturalism because to think,you need a brain to provide the ability to function independently as a being.It's still unknown where consciousness is derived from but a metaphysical naturalist would assume it's just a product of natural processes and nothing beyond the material world..

I'm not sure rationalism

I'm not talking about rationalism, I used Rationality .

It's about one being able to control his thoughts

and metaphysical naturalism are in opposed in anyway but I'd like to hear your perspective in a more comprehensible way,cos I believe your onto something but just mixing things up. Rationalism and empiricism would be worthy opponents,if that's what your getting at(I don't think so)

I'm not mixing anything up at all.

Let me try again.

According to the naturalist you mentioned above, consciousness is a product of the brain.

Brain is the cause, consciousness (mind) is the effect.

And for a conscious being, conscious actions are initiated in the mind.

i.e: Conscious being as I will use throughout this post means a being that thinks and knows it is thinking.

Brain ---> Mind ----> Action.

So, in order to control thoughts (mind) those chemicals in the brain must also be controlled.

So, how does the Mind (effect) control the chemicals in the brain (Cause) in other to control thoughts (Effect)

This means the effect can control the cause.

But, if a conscious being can't control his thoughts (mind) then things he thinks about or does are automatic feeds from the brain (cause)

budaatum:
My thinking about this current subject, as evidenced by my input in this thread, is a cause of the effect of you creating the thread.

If you had not initiated a conscious action in my human physiology mind, I'd likely be talking about something much less intelligent like a flat earth or tomatoes!

So, you are not in control of your thoughts? It just reels out as the brain chuns them out from the stimulis it receives?

budaatum:
You accuse me of not getting you when I just don't use words your.

Take the simple bit above. You've switched from "material" to "material being", and made out like "material being" is what you meant in the op. Surely if that were the case, you ought to have said so as it would be rather odd, I think, to assume your "material" there meant "human being".

Material being meant human in a naturalistic point of view.

So whether I use material/material being, as long as (thought/mind/think) is also used, it is obvious that I am talking about human or at least beings that can think.

Word uses are hardly important.

Then there's the second paragraph, where you eliminate the profound material effect you have on my thought and make out like I just thought up all I wrote with no input from you!

I can most certainly be like some who control what they think and accuse others of "delving into arguments that are mostly non sequitur" or "not getting the argument" and "missing the point", but I think I am just a human being who is not solely in control of my thoughts as you can clearly see, as there is no way I'd be thinking of any of what I am writing here if you, an external entity to whatever chemicals might be in my brain, had not placed this wonderful thought provoking idea in front of my eyes inflicting my brain with a "spark of deeper thoughts" so that I now consider the "more profound philosophical arguments on this board" that you have once again presented as you usually do and which would not be the case if you hadn't since I would not have thought this up with no material input from your very wise self and for which my appreciation of you is immensely boundless.

Please take credit for making the chemicals in my brain do whatever it is they do as far as this thread is concerned.

k

LordReed:
Have you seen a naturally occuring 1 or 2 before?

Yes.

A pair of oranges is 1 and 2

Mathematics is a language that is used to quantify objective patterns or reality.

The figure (abstract idea) 1 and 2 is fiction, man made.

But the oranges (substance) isn't.

So, the Language is fiction, what it describes isn't.

Same way normal langauges like English or Igbi are man made but describe an objective substance.

The substance and the abstract aren't the same

budaatum:
Effect that controls what cause exactly? My opinion of the material nature, or the material nature itself?

I would not think of rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, hell etc, unless rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, gravity, hell etc actually exist or have been created even as concepts in a mind. And my thoughts about rocks, unicorns, love, houses, Australia, gravity, hell etc are merely attempts at rationalising, as in explaining (or creating) things with my own mind.

As the Greeks stated long before Christianity's hijack:

In the beginning was the Logos (logic, reasoning),... All things were made by the Logos; and without the Logos was not any thing made that was made.

Basically, humans are the measure of all things. And until we measure things, things do not exist to us though they may exist and we just know it not.

I still think you didn't get the argument.

Let me change the wordings from Rationality to simply: Thought control.

budaatum:
I wonder if you are again attempting to set Rationalism and Materialism as opposites on a common scale.

Nope. I'm again attempting to see if I can spark of deeper thoughts and more profound philosophical arguments on this board.

I myself can't see that! Below is a definition from

Lol. Ok

Eight Confusing Philosophical Terms Explained.

Materialism is the opposite of Idealism and sees matter as the primary reality and all other things including thoughts as the product of interactions of matter.

Ok.

Rationalism is the belief that the rational mind is the best way to know something. If you are a rationalist you believe that your mind is more trustworthy than your sense. A stick in the water might look bent, but you know rationally that it only looks that way because it is in the water.

Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason, as in, whatever reason I may think up in my head. While materialistic, as used here, implies the physical evidence itself, though note it actually means as evidenced by a person who might be rational or irrational or blind .

Here is a thread showing a clear example of materialistic irrationality, though I am absolutely certain the op of that thread will claim to being rational.

Materialistic itself is a concept of the mind, as in an opinion of the material, which might be rational or irrational, and is not the same as the physical world itself which exists regardless of what any mind might make of it.

I may have a rational or irrational view of the material before me since my opinion of the material itself is created in my rational or irrational mind.

I do believe you missed the point and delve into arguments that are mostly non sequitur.

Let me rephrase the argument again.

If a material being is in control of his thoughts, and his thoughts are a product of his brain (material)

Then the brain is the cause while thought is the effect.

In order to control thought, the thinker must be able to control processes in the brain.

How do the thinker (thought) which is the effect control the cause?

The idea is, if thought (effect) is a product of the cause, then you can't control the cause since it take thought to initiate a conscious action in human physiology.

But, if conscious process starts from the brain without control then we are not in control of our thought, it is just reeling out as predetermined by the material brain.

Rationality implies that a Thinker is in control of thoughts.

By materialistic or naturalistic doctrine, thoughts (mind) are effects that are caused by some processes in the brain.

In other to ground rationality, the thinker (The effect) must control the processes in the brain (The cause)

Can there be an effect that controls the cause?

If No, then materialistic/naturalistic doctrine for rational thought is self refuting since it would imply that the effect comes before the cause.