₦airaland Forum

butterflyl1on:
Cc johnydon22

yes?

butterflyl1on:
Your argument is faulty because it begins with a presupposition that God subscribes to YOUR idea of space and time. That being said let me correct some impressions.

Your analogy using a movies and the characters in the movie and them being subject to the timer on the movie isn't water tight.

Before you have any movie from a movie producer you first have THOUGHT! the movie producer receives an idea (thought) of the kind of movie he wishes to make and the duration of time he wants it to run for.

Notice that the movie producer is subject to his thoughts regarding

1. Type of movie
2 Type of characters
3. Duration of the movie

Based on that this is how I see your analogy.

Thought = God

Movie producer = Nature

Characters = Us

Time = brought in by the thought but not subject to it.

If you look at it critically, thought isn't subject to time. It does not follow any known parameters for time. 5 million people all over the world can be thinking about the same thing at the same time without being influenced by the same experience.

Someone who lived 100 years ago and thought about something back then, such a thought can also be conceived by someone who came 500 years later and both of them not being influenced by the same experiences, plus not knowing that someone else has already had this thought centuries before.

This is why I say the movie producer is nature: Nature has been here before us so nature works with a different time I. E is older than our time so in a sense nature can regulate our time but is regulated by something else.

Daily people die (get removed from on the movie) or get born aka produced ( get included into the movie as a new cast) Yet all these removal and addition of casts by nature who is the movie producer is based on a preconceived thought.

If nature decides to pause or speed up itself then time speeds up for the cast in the movie just like the pause or fast forward of a video player.

The thought is the push, the movie producer is the reaction

The thought is the cause, the movie producer is the effect

The thought works outside time and no matter how hard time tries it cannot regulate or limit thought.

Good morning!

read the post again you entirely miss the premise raised.

premise 1. A person outside (A) space and time and is in (B) space and time cannot perform actions as a person within Space/time (A)

premise 2. transcendency doesn't necessarily mean without any time and space.

Bonus question to touch your post a bit: Can there be thought without time?

If yes, give me one example of such a thought that didn't have a start.

if No, tell me why?

adepeter2027:
Lol

It's night naw....

BTW, you could drop ya email so I can contact you

if you draw a straight line, it has only one dimension and that is length. No width, only length - that is example of one dimension.

if you draw a square it has 2 dimension because it has both length and width.

a box is three dimensional it has length, width and height.

so a dimension is a point in space, add one point in space and you make an extra dimension

AgentOfAllah:
Johnydon22, this is a thought provoking proposition. I especially like your projection unto a 2D realm that is familiar to us all. My best teachers were always the ones with the remarkable ability to create mental images using mere words! Maybe consider becoming a part time, pro bono lecturer of philosophy in a school nearby.

Thank you for the compliment

---

That said, I didn't quite understand your XYZ+T=c formalism, so hope you clarify it later on.

it's just a mathematical projection of dimensions plus time in relativistic term which must equal to universal constant of (c) the speed of light.

I understand the rest of your argument, but think there are simple caveats that may yet clog the wheels of your conclusion.

lets see.

Now, consider this scenario in your 2D movie analogy:

I, the transcendent observer, am not too pleased with the fate of some of the characters in the movie at some specific time signature. Can I not potentially change the fate, 're-shoot', as it were, a different scene of the same characters and then splice and fuse said scene at the time signature of my choosing, thereby, prolonging/hastening/rearranging the fated timeline of said characters?

there are two ways i can answer this.

1. Someone making a movie can do this, once the movie is released to the public you may change things in the movie but the pre-released movies cannot change anymore. take the extended versions of movies for example, the extended versions are just alternate versions of the first release. If you have the normal cut and extended version of Lord of the rings.
when you are watching the normal cut, things on the extended version won't appear but both are different universes therefore cannot affect each other.

so whatever version of one movie you are watching is just like an alternate universe.

2. Open any movie right now on your phone, then try changing what is happening there by plucking one out, killing someone inside the movie.

In this scenario, does my interference not contradict your deduction that we "cannot perform actions within that 2D space and time"?

You quite did not understand the analogy: let me try and see if i can break it down further. You are watching Lord of the rings, you phone, laptop or tv any device you are watching it with is a 2d projector. So this movie you are watching is on a 2d universe, you are on your couch with pop corn and you are outside that 2d universe and is in your 3d universe.

No matter what you do, it does not affect the movie, you as a person cannot perform actions within that 2d universe. Like say "tell frodo and sam to hide" and they hear you, match into the tv and assist them in a fight or pluck sauron out directly from your couch.

there is no way for you to get up from your couch and enter into that 2d dimension, and if you are peter jackson who made Lord of rings, what ever you add or remove from the already released movie can only make an alternate movie

If it does, then can't a god that resides in an extradimensional realm potentially also splice, fuse and rearrange our fates at will.

Ultimately lead to an alternate universe like the extended version of Lord of the rings.

Although, I easily concede that no matter how many new scenes I add to the movie, the 2D characters will never be able to perceive my interference because they will never be able to foresee their yet to be unwound fates which occupy a future timeline in the movie. Likewise, we may not be able to perceive the interference of this extradimensional god with our fates, but don't you think there is still a possibility that it exists and it interferes nonetheless?

You can interfere in a movie by pausing the time, hastening it, running the time backward but only you notices these changes, characters within your TV do not, but that is by the way.

The implications i tried to highlight was: a transcendent entity (you) cannot perform actions within a time and space it transcends (inside your tv)

adepeter2027:
Everything about this space & time of a sh!t stuff.

I started reading "the universe in a nutshell". At page 10, I got frustrated.

I Was not understanding again.....

ok let me explain with illustrations.

do you have a pen and paper?

adepeter2027:
If I understand anything, let Lucifer push me to heaven.

Anyways, ma just Dae learn cos this physics Wan pass my level

what don't you understand let me explain it then

felixomor:
And if such organisation incures losses and bankrupts, what should the government do for it?

file for bankruptcy like other profit generating organisations

butterflyl1on:
Why do people find it hard to comprehend the simplest of things?

This is not a question and answer session please. Simply drop your opinion and the reason or reasons for such that's all.

where there is an objective definition, opinion becomes irrelevant.

a shoe is not a computer because you have the opinion that is it, for it to be a computer it must fall within the definitions of a computer.

So a definition has been given, there is no more need for opinions.

johnydon22:
Biology men, biology.

I have always noticed that most discussions here on the religious board lack definition, that is the sole reason why discussions don't always tally. You will arguing based on one definition, the other will be replying based on another which makes neither party to understand each other.

So to avoid that totally avoidable and frustrating scenario i will go ahead and add a definition.

an·i·mal
ˈanəməl/Submit
noun
1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

scientific definition Animal.

The definition of an animal is a member of the kingdom Animalia, and is typically characterized by a multicellular body, specialized sense organs, voluntary movement, responses to factors in the environment and the ability to acquire and digest food..

there, that is the definition of Animal, and please i beg someone to show me how man falls outside the scope of these definitions then i will say man is not an Animal if not then, your guess is as good as mine.

or maybe provide me with your own definition of Animal if you don't agree.

CatfishBilly:
I understand your points. The transcendent god argument works best for a Deistic good as you've rightly said, but it's still an argument for a god.

Yes i have not intended to attack the existence of God here just correcting the application of transcendency

[quote]Now, a god that trascends our own time and space but is limited by time and space in another "realm", it kind of limits the "powers" of this god.
Which would now lead to a kind of ad hoc rescue attempt but declaring that the said god is not limited by any time and space in any realm whatsoever.[/quote

a being in hyprer space/time (my word to describe time and space beyond ours), if we could observe such being (though we can't since we are confined within our own inescapable time and space) it would appear all powerful to us since it's ability would stretch far above our understanding of how physics works.

a 2D being in a 2D plain would marvel if it is able to observe a 3D being because it would not really understand the concept of UP

The concept of time is something that confuses many about modern physics since modern physics recognises time as a dimension. We live in a 4 dimensional universe - that is 3 spatial dimensions + time or maybe not to confuse people let us use the traditional words. We live in a 3 dimensional universe + time.

So our universe is 3D run by time.

You can represent it in mathematics thus.

spatial dimension - (XYZ)
time -(T)

so relatively speaking
XYZ + T = C

C is the speed of light 'a constant'

Ok enough of that, maybe on another discussion we may talk about that further, now let me use what we experience everyday to explain how time relates to space and what it means to be transcendent.

We all watch movies, either by with our phones, laptops or DVD, any method you use always have one thing in common and that is a timer

You always see it counting for the duration of that movie, if the time stops the movie is over, if you pause the time nothing moves.

Pay attention to if time stops because it literally determines the fate of the movie, if the movie has no time then there is no movie.

A movie is 2D even though it may appear 3d to you but actually it's 2d - it is more like drawing a box on a sheet of paper, it appears 3d but in fact it's just 2.

I hope you understand the concept of movie time explained above.

Now you can say that when you are watching a movie you are watching a 2D + time plain or universe.

But you are not within that movie time and space therefore you are transcendent to the time and space of the movie = it means you are outside the space and time of the movie.

The implication is

You can be outside a particular space and time, but doesn't mean you are not confined within another space and time

So you as a person in our 3D+T universe watching a movie is outside the Space and time of the movie.

Nothing happens to the time of the movie that affects you, nothing happens within that 2D space that concerns you, if the time is paused you dont get paused - you literally don't exist within that 2D and Time. (even if you are watching a picture of you in that movie)

And the implication is; You cannot perform actions within that 2D space and time, you cannot be a person within that plain.

We are all familiar with the transcendent argument, God is outside space/time.

This can only mean that God is outside our own space/time not necessarily without any space/time - for God or any other type of transcendent being or beings to exist it must be confined within a space/time more than us, let us call it a hyper space/time (Should consist of even much more dimensions)

And this literally suggests that anything outside this space/time cannot perform actions within this space/time as a person just as we cannot perform actions within the space and time of a movie we are watching.

This i think is in direct contradiction with theistic ideas of what God is.

if God is transcendent then God cannot perform actions within our time, If God can perform actions within our time then God cannot be transcendent.

A transcendent God can only be reconciled with a deistic concept of God, not one that is aloof but rather one that cannot intervene even if ii desires to.

What do you guys think. Loj, hahn, hopefulandlord, doctoralien, dorox, CatfishBilly

butterflyl1on:
Your desire to put the thread on a leash is not what my OP is about. Define all you want to your own purpose but this here is a thread for opinions and not definitions.

Anyone can expand on whatever they know and arrive at a different conclusion from yours. Afterall right here on Nairaland I have read from atheists who believe man is not an animal but a god to himself or even energy so how does your definition help them?

Give your opinion and leave it at that. Trying to force this to go the way you want it is not my idea. Thanks

Cc ifenes can i get your own view?
billyonaire can I also get your own view?
Loj can I get your view?

johnydon22:
Biology men, biology.

I have always noticed that most discussions here on the religious board lack definition, that is the sole reason why discussions don't always tally. You will arguing based on one definition, the other will be replying based on another which makes neither party to understand each other.

So to avoid that totally avoidable and frustrating scenario i will go ahead and add a definition.

an·i·mal
ˈanəməl/Submit
noun
1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

scientific definition Animal.

The definition of an animal is a member of the kingdom Animalia, and is typically characterized by a multicellular body, specialized sense organs, voluntary movement, responses to factors in the environment and the ability to acquire and digest food..

there, that is the definition of Animal, and please i beg someone to show me how man falls outside the scope of these definitions then i will say man is not an Animal if not then, your guess is as good as mine.

or maybe provide me with your own definition of Animal if you don't agree.

My post was so simple.

Does man fall within those definition or not?

that is all.

Biology men, biology.

I have always noticed that most discussions here on the religious board lack definition, that is the sole reason why discussions don't always tally. You will arguing based on one definition, the other will be replying based on another which makes neither party to understand each other.

So to avoid that totally avoidable and frustrating scenario i will go ahead and add a definition.

an·i·mal
ˈanəməl/Submit
noun
1.
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

scientific definition Animal.

The definition of an animal is a member of the kingdom Animalia, and is typically characterized by a multicellular body, specialized sense organs, voluntary movement, responses to factors in the environment and the ability to acquire and digest food..

there, that is the definition of Animal, and please i beg someone to show me how man falls outside the scope of these definitions then i will say man is not an Animal if not then, your guess is as good as mine.

or maybe provide me with your own definition of Animal if you don't agree.

Samsimple:
Just an opinion, pls no insults abeg

Any organisation that makes profit should pay tax to the government.

revelatiorcm:
There is no one God after all,
but there is one true God.
Jesus Christ Of Nazareth

There is no such a thing as one true Nigerian..

Your post above is as absurd as saying, there are many Nigerians but one true Nigerian.

DoctorAlien:
Johnydon22 come and see o

Thanks for the invite baba let me read

segunojo866:
An atheist friend told to me that he is God but i don't understand him because he doesn't believe in God?

No i am human, what exactly is the need of tagging myself God. it doesn't change shiit. I think the problem of people tagging themselves God, kings and queens and all that is a psychological effect born out of emotional insecurity and a false projection that tags and labels somehow makes you more than you are.

JackBizzle:
We should compile the most stupid threads on the relifion section and vote for the worst in december for the end of the year party.

Cc hahn, hopefullandlord, johnydon22......

I think the new trend here is, open any silly thread based on false premises and inaccurate assumptions about subjects you know nothing of, then base your arguments on the premise of this false assumption plus a personally conceived silly definition.

then base your question on these false premise, assumption and definition.

And expect people to answer your idiocy, expect people to answer your own misconceptions, lack of proper information, jumper assumptions and personal false premises taken as truth.

It can only frustrate the shit out of you if you try to indulge especially for someone like the OP who seem to have some form of cognitive impairment, Just read the conversation with AgentOfAllah on this thread, my patience doesn't run that deep.

So what i do most of the time is just ignore silly threads.

The very OP doesn't even make any sense, he curls out two types of atheism straight out of his ass then expect you to come answer his own silly misconceptions and false premises.

damn!!! i cannot come and kill myself.

Proudgorgeousga:
ok.

that's to say in case of rape or congenital disorder you are pro choice?

Yes in a broad sense and also conditions where the mother's life is threatened, i also advocate for a certain degree of discretion for rape cases since considering it the child is also a victim.


Just say that i advocate for life to be given a chance.

CatfishBilly:
Definitions could be biological and legal, for example, adult has a legal definition and a biological definition.
So, if you say abortion is murder, then we've entered the area of law, so you'll have to prove that fetus are humans under the law. But if you say abortion is killing a fetus, now we've left the law, we can now discuss it outside the confines of the law.
Saying abortion is murder is a moot point in my opinion.

Murder can be quantified through several points and moral directives, cultural, religious or political (so called legal)

and for clarity sake can you produce a legal definition of "HUMAN BEING" with credible link there be, i will like to read on that.

So, at what point is the fertilized sperm and ovum called a homo sapien in your opinion?

Oh at the very conception. it's a life circle and that is the beginning of a homo sapiens.

If you consider destruction of unused embryo abhorrent as well, what would you rather be done to them?

Not making more than was required in the first place.

Declaring abortion murder would have far reaching consequences in the medical world. It would affect assisted reproduction, scientific research into ways of curing genetic diseases, the list is endless.

Maybe during world war 2 German scientists were right after all to use kids for medical research, after all such research could also have medical implications.

Proudgorgeousga:
So in your opinion abortion is wrong in all situations?

Nope not in every situation

JackBizzle:
I cant believe that you too have followed the felixomoron/Butterflylying method of half-truth logic.


As wirinet pointed out- a person is made up of cells but a union of cells is not necessarily a person.

I am pretty sure the post i quoted didn't bear this quote above, languages present the context of an argument. Saying simply "a cell is not human" requires further clarifications since humans are still just cells every inch of us.

union of cells is not necessarily a person statement depends on which cells we are talking about here.

CatfishBilly:
You conveniently left out the census part. Abi women aren't counted in census again? That's by the way sha

There is no convenient left out here, the point was simple: a human is no more defined as someone who can be counted in a census any more than it is defined by someone who has rights to a property.

My definition of human is biological and on that biological note i base my arguments, unborn babies are as much human as any of us

Within the confines of the definition of murder which is a legal construct, you have to define a human being based on the law. So, if the law says muder is the killing of a human being, you have to find out what is legally defined as a human being. Is a fetus considered a human being under the law? The answer is no.

Murder can be quantified through several points and moral directives, cultural, religious or political (so called legal) I have seen gross abhorrence legalised and quite the reverse made illegal, yes this gives credence to the subjectivity of human moral outlook.

legal is not necessarily good as much as illegal is not necessarily bad.

Again i do not base my definition of human on your so called legal definition of human if there is such a thing.

We become human when we breathe in air for the first time outside the confines of the womb. There's a process to get to being labeled a human being. You can't pick an arbitrary point during this process and term it a human being.

This i contend in every way, drawing your first breathe free of the womb does not define human, classified under the homo sapiens specie does.

If that were so, all the embryo that that weren't implanted during assisted reproduction like IVF and are subsequently destroyed could be said to have been killed and the person destroying them charged with murder.
That's crazy

I am arguing on a traditional biological sense, none the less still find this action abhorable

CatfishBilly:
Oga, a woman carrying a zygote can't menstruate. It's either implantational bleed or miscarriage.

Nnaa ayam juss tayad of that one

vaxx:
don't sound as if you understand everything.... Women with a fertilized egg can still mensurate that is my point here? I only correct your assumptions when you say fertilized woman can't mensurate

God of mercy. Fertilised ovums dont menstruate ooo!!!

CatfishBilly:
So, what is the legal definition of a human being? At conception or at birth?
Do fetus have human rights? Do they have right to inherit property? Are they counted in a census etc?

Human being: 1. A member of the species Homo sapiens.

Not having any rights to inherit property is not the definition of a human or we would then say women are less human in fundamental African culture.

Legality does not make human, biological classification does.

Now to my question: At what point did you become you? At birth or conception?

At what point did you begin to exist?

CatfishBilly:
Well, this back and forth is based on the presupposition that abortion is murder. Murder is a clearly defined term and abortions don't fall under it.

murder
ˈməːdə/
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Fetus is human and living

As for the argument if a fetus is considered alive or not, that's an argument for another day.

Let us argue on it because I am pretty sure living and non-living cannot be mistaken...

vaxx:
this is not true....
Why?

let's say there was an egg that had been fertilized. The womb is an hazardous place to be without implantion. Especially during menstruation. The uterus swells, it contracts, it shed the lining that the egg would've implanted on. If the womb didn't dissolve the fertilized egg before the period, it wouldn't be in a position to stay in there ...

If you accept natural death isn't murder then miscarriage isn't murder tooo

I dont even get where this one is coming from, who ever said miscarriage is murder...

Miscarriages are natural and thus like natural death is not murder.

This argument is on induced abortion which in that context is likened to premeditated murder.

Jesus Christ!!!

CatfishBilly:
That's why government enact policies like the one child policy, free contraceptives, etc.
The idea is to prevent the humans from being born and abortions achieve exactly that.

When murder becomes part of this method it becomes not OK.

On the other hand, whether a fetus is is considered alive or the fetus becomes alive is one debate that will continue till the end of time. Which is why the choice of having the baby should rest with the parents of the baby.

I can bet my balls that we all know a fetus is alive.

bortion is not and can never be murder. No court of law has declared it so. All we have is subjective interpretations. Every single country that has banned abortion did so out of some religious belief.

An abortion is not murder as a fetus is not humankind. It's just as abhorable as a hen breaking it's own eggs.

Science and research have no legal basis for such laws.
So, it's all he said she said.

Human laws can be derived from so many factors, religion one of this and if to your abortion is OK because some court of laws does not condemn it well others do even if its own religious basis it does not make it less valid. Law is law savy.

I personally, I'm pro choice. If you feel you can't give the barest minimum needed care to the infant and want to abort? I support you 100%

Personally I am pro preventive method in the first place use a condom, you dont go have raw sex and expect a laptop in return.

What's the use of having tons of children you can't cater for and they end up becoming a nuisance to the society at large?

Pregnancy is avoidable in the first place. Nigeria is overpopulated doesn't justify the need to kill some

CatfishBilly:
In this scenario you painted, the hen devours its eggs due to an irresistible urge to do so. If we have humans who just get pregnant and abort due to an irresistible urge to do so, I'm sure that the person would be sent to a mental home.

Now, on the other hand, induced abortion is procured when there are socioeconomic factors which make the option of choosing to have the child a poor decision.


They're apples and oranges in my view.

There are socioeconomic implications in Human over population that doesn't still make it OK to kill any of us

vaxx:
fetus are yet to be call human, yes they posses life but human stage development isn't complete... Likewise the same things with chicken egg..if you disagree with me answer this questions?


80% of the fertilized eggs are menstruated, then why aren't women who menstruate after having unprotected sex charged with murder?

Why don't we have funeral when there is miscarriage?

WTF fertilized eggs are not menstruated for God sake, unfertilized eggs are menstruated.

Fertilized egg is called a zygot and that is a damn baby..

And besides Natural deaths does not make murder OK.

I want whoever is supplying that man weed to supply mine too, I want to have what he is having.

Dude my erect junior is not cus of any damn Virgins in some heaven, its caused by a butt nake_d chick on my bed about to get some.

I want to present my argument with a story, listen to me and try to read meanings to my words.

On a very good Christmas i spent at the village about a decade ago, i was quite small and enjoyed christmases a lot. On the 24th of december mama made a pot of Ogbono soup, as i relished mine i noticed we had chicken in it which was unusual in a typical kpako Nigerian home.

The chicken is always reserved for the special occasion which was supposed to be the next day 25th december, you know christmas and all, a lot of swag came with that.

I was happy at the same time suspicious of the whole thing " does this mean we won't get to eat chicken tomorrow?"

I had to ask papa what was going on, why did we have chicken in our soup because i was very certain we only came back to the village with one huge white broiler from the town.

Papa laughed and explained.

"yes we will still eat Chicken tomorrow, the chicken we just ate is from a hen that breaks and drinks it's own eggs"

This story always comes to my mind when i am involved in arguments about abortions as people always bring the "fetus is not human argument" as absurd as i find that notion i will still argue even if this is the case doesn't still make it okay to kill it.

Now we can take eggs from a hen and eat, the eggs may be eaten by a snake or other predators or breaks by accident - these are naturally okay.

But when the mother hen by herself breaks her own eggs and drinks them, this is not okay, it was a disgusting sight for a hen to do this, this was exactly the reason why that hen had to be killed.

An egg may not be entirely a chicken but an egg is still chicken kind.

let me know if you made anything out of this story