₦airaland Forum

ooman:
Only nothing is beginingless, timeless and changeless. Anything that exist at all must have at least time as one of/its only property.

how about infinity?

Kay17:
Since you do not reject Big Ban.g theory at all or outright, it then means you picked out what's true or favourable to you and dumped the rest, right? My contention is, since you are adopting the main ideas in the Big Ban.g, you should as well follow the conclusions. The Big Ban.g theory does not in anyway say there was a timeless past prior to the Big BAn.g event, whilst you are at the other end, saying there was with dubious logic.

The big bang is not about the cause of the universe. It only describes how it came into being. It says nothing about what caused it. You are the one who is being dubious. The big bang theory does not give any opinion of the cause of the universe. It only gives the description of its coming into being.

I put up an argument based on the properties of the universe showing the logical nature of its cause and you come here hounding me because the big bang says nothing about its cause?

Kay17:
Adam and Seth's lifetimes probably overlapped. Same with Methuselah.

@ op Their lives did not probably overlap, their lives actually overlapped. Adam did not drop dead the moment he birthed Seth. He still lived and had other Sons and daughters.

Hiswordxray:
Or maybe God too doesn't think when He put this in the Bible:
"You are blameless in all you did from the day you were created until the day evil was found in you." (Ezekiel 28:15).

He are brother, I love you and I don't what to argue with you. But if I'm saying things you don't understand you should go ahead and make your brother look like a fool in front of these carnal men.
And if you want to voice out you should have approach me and I would try to explain myself, instead of implying that I don't think.

Please show love to your fellow brother.

How have I made you look like a fool? ??

Edit: I wasn't implying you didn't think. I was implying the person who asked where "evil was" didn't think. The post was addressed to him, not you.

Kay17:
1. The bolded is largely obtained by empirical observation and limited as an inductive experience.

So? Science is totally based on empirical observation.

Kay17: 2. Your argument is subtly based on the Big B.ang cosmological theory which you have always rejected. The idea that time and space are elastic and finite, is owed to this rejected cosmology. I find it a bit lazy and repugnant that you borrow/cherrypick the sections of the cosmological theory you like and disown the remainder. You have to come up with your own original ideas of how space, matter and time behave and correlate.

I cannot remember rejecting the big b.ang theory outrightly, but even if I had in the past, people change as they advance in knowledge. Get off my back. And if you can still show me where I'm cherry-picking I will make amends. And do you imply that the big bang theory is now rejected?

I could also say you should come up with your own ideas on how space and time correlate and stop borrowing ideas from Hawkings and others. Humanity is advanced when we build on our ideas ma'am. We must not isolate out thinking for fear of not being original. That would cause regress, not advancement.

Kay17: 3. I have gone through hypotheses made by eminent physicists such as Stephen Hawkings and Penrose. From my understanding of their works, they (especially Stephen) conceives of the concept of imaginary time which as a vertical element which our familiar time lacks. He posits that this time (imaginary time) preexists our familiar time and preexists the Big Ban.g event. You should look that up. Very interesting.

I will

undercat:
I beg to differ. I think the non existence of anything at all is a possible state of things, if you can call such blankness a state. Try to imagine a condition where anything you can think of is not.

The non-existence of anything is not feasible because we already have something existing. And something cannot arise from nothing.

undercat: If the universe means the whole of existence, then it includes whatever it was that banged. The bang refers the inflation of the universe, before the bang the universe was infinitely dense. It could have existed in that infinitely dense state forever, before banging.

The bang refers to the explosion of everything about our universe, including space-time from some "ancient energy".

undercat: I mean "cause" in the sense of the answer to the question "why does A exist and not B?". For example, why is there an eternal universe? or, why is there an eternal God? Why isn't there nothingness instead?

I do not think the universe is eternal. Your question of why there is a universe solves the question of the PERSON of its cause. Only an act of volition will cause the birth of the universe from infinity. Only volition will cause something of our universe's nature to be. Again. Nothing cannot create something, therefore a state of " nothingness" is not feasible, meaning that an eternal personality has always existed. Super abounding and being infinity itself.

undercat: We can only speak for our space-time. If we must speak of something outside the universe, what entitles us to assume that it has not space-time of its own?

This does not invalidate the argument but only makes the argument repeat itself for a different space time.

undercat: My train of thought is not infinite regress per se, but a finite series. It is entirely possible that this universe has a creator who was in turn created. The idea is that it is somewhat presumptuous to assume that the ultimate creator directly created our universe.

How is it possible that this universe had a creator who was created? You might say it is possible this universe might have sprung from a previous one, but you can't say it has a creator who might have been created, because you'll have to adequately challenge the attributes of the cause of this universe, adequately arguing that the cause itself would be less than infinite with regards to time and space so that it will be able to have an origin itself, as infinity has no origin.

undercat: This does not follow at all. Like I'm suggesting, the cause could also be an impersonal, eternal singularity. Have you ruled it out, and if yes, why?

As you have implied, the reason I have ruled it out is because only a volitional act can explain why something like our universe came into being. Why did eternity continue in its own singularity?

Weah96:
Who put the evil in Lucifer? Magic?

Evil is not an entity. I seriously don't know where these guys come up with this nonsense. Evil is the nature of ones character, not an entity that can be uploaded or downloaded into a mainframe.

Its a shame people don't really think these days.

Weah96:
If God isn't limited to religion, why are you still here talking about giving account in front of him? Why are you calling God a him? How do you know that there's only one God who doesn't have parents? Your entire comment reeks of a Christian bias brother. You have already defined God in your head, and your definition is clearly based on the bible. So defend your bible God, and quit pretending that you're worshiping an amorphous entity.

How do I know? I dared to think about it. You do not. You even dismiss logical ideas as religious notions.

But yes. I do not worship an amorphous entity.(I told you to start reasoning). The creator of the universe cannot be amorphous in any way, as this universe itself could only come about by an act of volition. You haven't thought about this have you? Didn't think so. I daresay most of the guys bashing God here haven't dared think or reason in any way about matters such as this. You simply dismiss everything and any concept of deity as religious notion then go on to use the premise of religion to deny the existence of deity.


Foolishness.

undercat:
It is not entirely clear that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. If something begins to exist out of sheer nothingness, can you even point to its starting point?

Sheer nothingness is logically and physically incoherent and not feasible.

undercat: The universe is said to have gotten to its present state due to the big bang, which I guess is the beginning you are referring to. What if in its previous state it had existed forever?

The Universe is not just said to have reached its present state but is said to have gotten its origin in a 'big bang'

undercat: It is not entirely clear that eternity is devoid of a cause either, and it is proper to ask "what is the cause of this eternal state of affairs?"

No actually. Eternity is essentially infinity. And it is essentially causeless. Unless you have an idea of an infinity of origin that you might want to share. I'm willing to listen

undercat: The universe may have a cause but it is not logically necessary for the cause to be itself uncaused. E.g. man is the cause of computers but man is not uncaused.

Similarly, it is not logically necessary for the cause to be immaterial, timeless and space less. The cause is free to have its own time, space and material.

It also does not follow that the cause is personal. How did you arrive at this?

Our universe (including space-time) is said to have had an abrupt beginning. I make the conclusion that anything sans space an time is eternity, infinity. And infinity is in all directions and uncaused. And there's a problem of infinite regress if one sticks to your train of thought.

Space and time are said to have originated with the big bang so the cause is necessarily immaterial, timeless and spaceless.

It follows that the cause is personal, because only conscious choice and action and even "thought" can account for the burst of energy and matter and space time and our universe in the absence of former conditions.

Pr0ton:
It has been an erroneous antiquated notion that people think or reason with their heart. This idea came from primitive ignorant men, including the writers of the Bible. The heart is useless in this case. All it mainly does is to pump blood. We think and reason with the brain, not with the heart. So we should know what we oughta be building our points on now.

I object. Some others opt to thinking and reasoning with their behinds in their bid to reject common self-evident truth, like atheists, who will begin a long descent of unreasonable faith and Id.iocy and denial in a bid to deny the existence of Deity.

Weah96:
So Muslims are going to hell too, along with the atheists, wealthy people, and almost all Christians. That is, if your assessment is on point.

You keep foolishly aligning humanity into different religious or irreligious groups. You actually think God is sidelined by a form of religion or a lack of religion. Smh. I want you to begin to reason now man. Don't you consider yourself a reasonable person? From your standpoint, if a true all-powerful God existed, what makes you think he will be limited to any individual's religious or irreligious affiliation? We will all stand before him and give account. He is too big to be classified. It is foolish to polymerize or classify God in a bid to justify an imaginary notion of unbelief. Enough said.

God only sees mostly two kinds of people: Men who have been justified and accepted salvation from sins that will take them to hell, and men who have rejected salvation in a bid for foolishness and love of wrongdoing. You do the math for where people in those groups will end up.

davien:
Apart from the fact that I've never said those words,i think you're misrepresenting what's actually the case...
Actually humans are "apes" by definition.....

I see I made a quite serious mistake misrepresenting you. Accept my apologies. I will correct myself now:

Here sits davien; a follower of the dogma of evolution

Signature comments: I am an ape by definition. I arose from predictable processes of nature though I cannot recreate those processes.



The ancient greek philosophers also had notions of common physical ancestry between man and monkeys and gorillas too if that also gives you some form of credit.

Maamin:
What do you understand by the word 'dogma'

Secondly you should know what I tie my belief system to.

I hope you dont have the same thought as Davien's fairy tale "ken ham and dinosaurs"?

davuen was trying to point out the fact that people of a particular line of thought believe the earth is young, and dinosaurs are recent, like man.

davien:
So truth relies on faith?...so how can one know what is true then if "truth" is subjective and can only be known by faith?

When did I mention truth relies on faith? I said faith is a response to truth. Faith in God to be precise. Truth is objective and relies on nothing and no one.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, we can put forward the next part

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.


Before I was aware of this argument I had a bit of thought on causes and origins and arrived at the same conclusion of the character and basic nature of the Source of all things.

Maamin:
Can you ask me more reasonable question pls?

How is my question unreasonable? You stated information you claim to be fact and I challenge your dogma and you call my question unreasonable?

davien:
maamin,meet joshthefirst....a creationist.
Signature comments are;
"How do you know?"
"Where you there?"

I can say the same about you.

Here sits davien, a follower of the dogma of evolution.
Signature comments: My ancestor was an ape. I arose from random processes of nature.

MrPresident:
Exodus 15:11 ------“Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you,"
Exodus 20:3 ------ "You shall have no other gods except me"
Joshua 24:2 --------“Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods.

my dear, you need to pay more attention in ur sunday school,

You need to pay more attention to atheist bash classes.


1 Corinthians 8:4-6 KJV

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

davien:
Really?....So is faith a path to truth when everything and anything can be "true" by faith?
Isn't it the same faith people use for "allah's hell"?

Faith is not a path to truth. Faith is a response to truth. You either have faith in the truth or you reject it. As for the question of which information is true, the information supported by witnesses is true.

Addietunes:
You ve got to be kidding me, why is it that christians always love to defend their beliefs without reasoning? Well according to my post there, Adam and Seth are only the ones in the same timeline. If you can still calculate, you would notice the error, by the way, try to reason this time and not just saying whatever that pops into your brain.

Unfortunately you are the one refusing to reason. This is simple logic and mathematics. If my dad was Adam and I was Seth would I sum up both of our ages to find out the age of the earth?

Maamin:
Stop lying Adam did not exist the same time with dinosaurs

How do you know?

davien:
lol....have you prepped yourself for "allah's hell"?

There is only one God.

Polymerizing the issue will not help. Pointing out different religious concepts will not invalidate truth.

Hiswordxray:
God is not "jealous of" but "jealous for"
He is jealous in this sense:
Protective, zealously guarding, careful in the protection of something one has or appreciates.

God is jealous for the ones He loves and this
is the reason He would protect them from evil and wickedness. God will achieve this by throwing every form of wickedness and evil into Hell.

God loves you but if you choose to be a part of evil and wickedness even after He had try to cut you off from it. Then you would be thrown into Hell together with the evil you refuse to depart from.

Separate yourself from evil now before it's too later.

Good answer. I agree.

Liekiller:
I mentioned that because I was ASKED. But yeah, just keep spewing your hatred about everything. People like you are another reason to turn my back on religion. I haven't seen you produce anything but vitriolic hatred here that is so characteristic for your kind, so what exactly do you want? Go read Nature, Science etc. if you want science. IT'S ALL PUBLISHED!!! I have NO obligation at all to waste hours and hours re-typing published research here, and I certainly won't. So why don't you publish your own papers in order to disprove it since you claim you can with your brilliant credentials? I'll certainly read it once it's in Nature

so if you want to check out some of the imaginary works after all feel free to go to
http://www.sciencedirect.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
etc. etc.
Then type "evolution" in the search bar, or whatever else you can't resist learning about.

Denying that the research even exists is SO ridiculous

Lol. Vitriolic hatred? Nawa ooo. Now you even accuse me of hatred. OK. Goodbye.

Liekiller:
Oh yes, I actually do know what the general scientific global community says about these things. I happen to be a member of it (in biology).

Liekiller:
My ignorance in what please? If you consider a PhD in biology nauseating ignorance then I guess that's your problem, not mine. See how you start foaming from your mouth and showering hatred on me because I don't give in to your attempts to waste my time posting stuff that is published and accessible to whoever wants to learn about it. As I have said before: if you argue against evolution (which happens to be pure biology), then the burden of proof is on YOU to provide hard BIOLOGICAL evidence in support of your point. Hating me doesn't disprove evolution, sorry.

Lol. All you have done is copy and paste from evil bible then rant about having a doctorate in biology. How do you think anyone is going to take you seriously? Singing about your supposed higher knowledge of these things when you have demonstrated none here. Or should I start going about my own credentials? Do you think shouting about a doctorate will give credence to the nothingness you have shown so far? Doctorate I hear.

And the burden is on you to give a single scrap of evidence of common descent here since you spout it as fact, but you have given nothing but referrals to imaginary works so far. Makes me think you are afraid of having any serious conversation for fear of embarrassment of your very educated self.

Very well Dr. Liekiller, stick to copying and pasting evil bible. When you want to have a real scientific conversation inform people who are interested.

Liekiller:
LOL it's all out there for everybody to evaluate. You can "challenge" me as much as you want - It's not my job to teach you biology. So why don't you provide a tiny scrap of evidence for your version of the story? Or is no evidence needed for that?

Sounds like dishonesty to me. If there's an overwhelming amount of evidence surely you should be able to put just a tiny one here and shame me forever.

Liekiller:
They agree on it because of the massive, overwhelming amount of EVIDENCE various fields of science have accumulated over the past 150 years. So, what I was saying is: if you want to "disprove" it, then you ought to deal with that evidence. It's not about making this claim or that claim based on personal preferences or beliefs.

There you go again spitting dogma. I challenge you to bring up one tiny scrap of evidence that shows that all living organisms evolved from a common ancestor.

davien:
what fundamentals? and when did I agree it's a creation?

Equivocation yet again

I keep telling you that until you can demonstrate "creationism",you can't call anything natural,a "creation"....

Toh. Until you an demonstrate common descent through a change in kind where a new organism with new and relevant genetic material is generated from an old one then you cannot say every living thing evolved from a common ancestor.

davien post: So now I'm the uneducated one here? From someone that believes two loaves and a few fishes could feed thousands

Anyway lets see if this accusation is true,shall we?

Lol. This attempt at mockery is coming from someone who vehemently claims to share the same physical ancestory with an ape.

davien post: 'm going to pawn you in two ways,first using your own bible,next through a well constructed argument...

So you believe something always has an origin do you? you're bible states in john 3:8;

So as a biblical literalist/creationist joshthefirst how can you go against "god's word" and say that something always has an origin?....or would you now interprete this verse because it's uneasy to you?

And then my other say is about energy,it has no origin...merely vessels or if you will,bodies that dissipate and/or utilize it...

Again we have the virtual particles in quantum mechanics that make up for a vacuum and its potential vacuum energy..

Seriously? Does the fact that a man does not know where the wind comes from and where the wind is going make the wind without origin? Nawa oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Oh you bring up the energy topic eh? God is a being of energy. More precisely, Energy itself is an aspect of God's nature. So that doesn't count.

And virtual particles are a function of the vacuum energy themselves.

davien post: This is a childish and basal form of logic(no offense intended)..

Subtracting the properties of a body does not give you any idea of its origin...

If we subtracted the properties of a human,would you say the origin is a brainless,boneless,handless,invertebrate-less,unintelligent something?

Or lets use your "genius logic" to find the origin of DNA,so it would be an oxygenised-pronucleic base,no?

This is poor comprehension. No one is subtracting the properties of any body. We're speaking of the originof the universe. The universe is space and time and matter. It is natural, there its origin is unnatural. Spaceless, timeless, without beginning, changeless and extremely powerful. (See the kalām cosmological argument)

davien:
So your DNA is an opinion?

The hardy weinberg equation used to trace back paternal/maternal relationiships is also an opinion?

It's I guess also,only an assumption that evolution is used as a heuristic tool in tracing retroviral insertions?

It's also only an assumption that is used in studying leprosy and congenital illnesses?

The opinion here is on our origins. The opinion is that all living organisms come from a common ancestor. That is the opinion. It is merely an opinion of history and it cannot be confirmed, or observed.

davien post: Your phrasing would have been correct if evolution were a belief,so no.
You only object to the science so as to hold a literalist interpretation of christian mythology.

I believe I have dealt with this before in other posts on this very thread. I am tired of repeating myself.

I could turn the tables and say you only subject to the naturalistic BELIEF of origins because you are afraid of the ramifications of a non naturalistic one.

davien post: Actually it would,you see scientists go by empirical methodology so if he objected to it,he would have to have a scientific argument against common decent and it would have to answer why evolution fulfills biochemical,archeological,anatomical,behavioural predictions...

Again, I have dealt with this sort of nonsense already. Common descent is not an observable opinion thus it is not experimental. The opinion of common descent has nothing to do with the experimental successes we are seeing in observable science today. I have nothingmore to say on this issue if you repeat yourself again, as I am tired.

davien post: Without it he would only be voicing an empty opinion,of which would degrade his own credibility...

Creation is not an empty opinion mind you. It is very well based on stable scientific logic and observed processes and citations of intelligent design.

smh.

Liekiller:
THIS is what I was referring to in my own responses to you. You seem to think that this all is about "belief". It isn't.

It is, as shown even explicitly by you who simply argues from a position of dogmatic belief and appeal to authority on things you do not know about.

Liekiller: A scientific approach doesn't CARE what the outcome will be. As opposed to your so-called "creation science" that manipulates observed facts in order to fit into a preconceived idea.

Unfortunately science is science. And it is the folk from your school of thought that manipulate their observed facts to fit into their preconceived notion that all organisms descended from a single ancestor. Even when they find discrepancies in the fossil record they simply manipulate their own timelines to justify their own worldview.

Liekiller: Just like you attempted to do above. And yes, this makes you less of a scientist or more precisely a non-scientist.

Babble. Tell this to your folk.

Liekiller: Your only argument in "refuting" a scientific theory that has been confirmed a million times with a million different sources by a million different people is to state that you "don't believe in it".

Please kindly show where it has been confirmed that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor. Do you now realize the dogma filled crap you've been spouting here? Nothing about the notion that we all descended from a common ancestor has been confirmed. It cannot be observed, it cannot be proved. It is just an opinion of our history as living things, just like creation.

Liekiller: While I personally don't care one bit what you believe or don't believe, you should at least understand that this approach is NOT scientific. That is the opposite of science.

How can my approach be scientific when the notion I refuse to believe is not scienctific as it is not observable?

Liekiller: I doubt that you know even 0,01% of the knowledge that has been accumulated in the fields of genetics, comparative anatomy, palaeontology etc. etc., and still you are arrogant enough to claim that it's all based on nothing. And then you go on to call me arrogant? WHO is arrogant here? haha

And it is obvious you and every other person on this planet have no idea if we descended from a common ancestor or not. It is an opinion that you take. My refusal to take this pill simply because I find it ludicrous and idi.otic does nothing to my scientific credentials or negate my ideas.

Liekiller: Just as a side note: as far as I'm concerned one CAN believe in a creator AND evolution etc. The only people who seeem to have problems with bringing the two together are Christian fanatics of the very antiquated type who take their books all too literally. How about questioning your "holy book" as much as you question everything else??

I do not care. I must not take your opinion as fact. I consider you a fanatic who wants to force a point of view of the origin of living things that is as much a worldview as mine as fact (edit: the only difference is that in its effort to be naturalistic and godless it ends up being quite stupiid. One of the most stupiid and idioti.c things man has dared believe in) and teach it as truth to high school students. I consider it basal and quite unscientific.


And do well to note that my post was not addressed to you. You should start communicating from where you left off and first apologize for using dogma treated glasses to deliberately misunderstand my point before challenging me on why I don't take your common ancestor crap to be fact.

Mathematical:

Questions for believers.What gives you the faith to believe? Why do you spread the word? Where does the passion to defend your beliefs come from? And why do you defend it? What events if any have turned you to religion? Why believe in the impossible?
Questions for Nonbelievers. Why not believe? Why do you find mostly flaws in religious texts? Where does the passion come from to go against religious belief? Why is your way the way? What events if any turned you away? Why believe only in the possible?
Just trying to dig into the reasoning for both.

1. God gave me the faith to believe. It was a gift.
2. I spread the word cuz its good news. Salvation from damnation. We can obtain grace. Irrespective of our works, our shortcomings.
3. The passion comes from Gods love for me. And my love for the man I speak with. In all my words, I strive to win the man.
4. Because its the truth. I defend it for your sake. I bear witness to it. So that others will believe.
5. I have been turned away from religion not to it. In any case, learning and being brought to the end of myself, realizing my need for a saviour and realizing his love, brought me to the end of the line.
6. Hmmm. Why believe the impossible? That's pretty deep. Why do I believe the impossible? Let me define my impossible: Why do I believe I'm saved and justified before God, as righteous as the very pinnacle of righteousness? Why do I believe I am now a perfect man? It is simply because I keep receiving gifts you see. Gifts of love and favor by the very one who Justifies me. His love for me makes me believe the impossible of him. And his power makes the impossible a trivial reality in my life. #Selah.

davien:
joshthefirst we don't create things we use "starting materials" to make things, we're familiar with that.
What we're not familiar with is a hocus pocus "creation" where anything can be led into existence ex nihilo(from nothing)...

Although this is a straw man, since you put it up as the owner of the thread I will address it. Note that before this I did not bring up anything about the fundamentals of creation and existence, you did.

Now, the general informed theist's POV is not that everything came up out of nothing. Please go and educate yourself and stop misyarning here. We believe that since something always has an origin and a cause then the universe had an origin. And minus the universe, this origin is timeless, spaceless, unchangeable and infinite. As this origin is infinite, then it is extremely powerful. This is basically the God-definition.