@Deepsight

Thanks for this thread. I will give full vent to my perceptions on the issues that you raised; but at the moment I'm very busy. If you can kindly give me time, I will appreciate it. Expect my reply around the weekend; but if I'm opportuned, I will reply earlier.

Also, may I request that in the course of this thread  an unhealthy attention should not be drawn to the personality of a certain author, especially concerning his origin and etc. I believe that you know what I mean here.

This is a very worthy thread indeed!

Thanks.

@deepsight

These two videos shows what I was trying to explain with my charged wire and transformer analogy.
When current passes through a wire, a field is generated around the wire, or emanates around the wire. This field caries neither an element of the wire nor an element of electricity or current in the wire. The field is actually magnetic; it is only the effect of the pressure created by the electric current in the wire.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NeF7u_9_Sw&feature=related


In the case of a transformer we see two different closed systems not making contact with each other. Only the primary coil is connected to power, thus powered or energized. But the field around this energized system is enough to induce current to flow in the second system or secondary coil. The funny thing is that the energy spent on the secondary coil does not effect or reduce the power connected to the primary coil. If the power connected to the primary coil would last only two days; it will still last two days whather there is a secondary coil or not. Even if you connect a lot of load on the secondary coil it doesn't reduce or effect the power on the primary coil.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Ijjm7if5g&feature=related

The point that I was trying to make is that the power in the primary coil remains in it and does not really flow into the secondary; but the pressure it creates, the magnetic field around it causes current to flow in the secondary coil. This is a very coarse analogy about the relationship between God and His creation or radiations. The power in God remains in God, it is inexhaustible and remains in God; but the pressure it creates cause the movement which we call energy or which we erroneously call power in creation. Eventhough this movement that we call energy in creation is dependant on God's power, it cannever exhaust or depreciate the Power that is in God. Just as the power consumed in the secondary coil does not depreciate the power in the primary coil. Electricity in the secondary coil originates in the secondary coil, although pr opeled by the magnetic filed of the primary coil. You cannot trace the current in the secondary back to the primary coil or say that they carry elements of the primary coil. By the same token, creatures in creation originate from the radiation of God, although this radiation is propelled by the power that is God; you cannot trace these creatures back to God or say that they carry elements of God. In this analogy, the powered primary coil represents God while the loaded secondary coil represents His is creation. Observe in the video, how the load(the electric bulb) on the secondary coil gets brighter just by moving the secondary coil closer to the primary coil. The same way specis of creation that are closer to God are brighter and more energized than those further away.

Keep in mind like I said earlier that these are just coarse analogies to convey an idea; notthing physical can truly and exactly replicate the relationship between God and His creation.

I believe God stands apart from His creation; just as an artist stands beside his work, or just as the two coils in a transformaer stand next to each other, not touching.

I don't know if you see the relevance of this in the discussion at hand. Forgive me, as an electrical engineer, I tend to see everything in the light of electricity.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:

That is why i said it is not a good example. Because God is not a conductor of energy but the energy itself. In magnetism, you are aware also that bodies can be magnetized and demagnetized. Does this not infer something? Is it truly correct to say that the charges that align around a magnet contain no element of charges aligning within the magnet? I am not a scientist or physicist, but I am not sure you can say that in all exactness. The gong example does not seem to tally up with the God example at all, and I cannot understand its relevance.

Anyhow, I do get your general point, and I hope that I will have better illumination in future.

The fact that the bodies can be magnetized and demagnetized does not mean anything to the analogy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; so any example that I give cannot imply the source of energy of the creation of energy. The purpose of an analogy is to convey an idea; the analogy can never conform to every aspect of that which it conveys.

Fluxes are not charges that alien around a magnet. Even if they are, do the fluxes contain any element of the magnetized iron? The gong analogy applies. The bottom line is that the sound that emanates from the gong caries neither an element of the gong or the energy applied to the gong.

Whenever anything is energized, something emanates. The emanation can be sound, heat and etc. and they don’t always contain an element of the energized object. Your fan hums, and creates pressure in the air thereby forcing the air to move. Does this pressure contain an element of your fan? Your car makes sound (hums) when you turn it on; does this humming sound emanating from your car contain elements of your car. Your body radiates heat; does this heat contain particles of your body?

Thanks

Deep Sight:

In this case, the wire is not the source of the electricity - it is merely a conductor, and for this reason this analogy does not resonate with me.

Dear Deep sight. In reality there is nothing like the source of electricity, electricity is just movement of electrons or charges across a conductor. Once there is a potential difference or EMF across a conductor charges flow. All the charges are already in the conductor; only that creating a potential difference across the conductor causes the charges to flow.

The point that I was trying to make is that where ever high energy is at work, this energy creates pressure around it; this pressure or radiation emanates from the charged object, yet neither having any particle of the object nor the energy in the object.

Deep Sight:

Nevertheless, you are by far the grand master of analogies. Can you give me an analogy that fulfills this criteria: something that is itself the source of an emanation and the emanation of which does not contain any element of the thing which is the source.

Okay I will give you another two analogies:
(1)Consider a magnet! It creates pressure which we call magnetic flux around it. This flux that emanates from the magnet but contains no element of the magnet. Consider a piece of metal, once magnetized(energized), this energy creates flux or magnetic field around the piece of iron. This field or emanation does not contain any element of the iron; neither is the field a part of the magnet. The flux itself is not part of the magnet, it is only a consequence of the magnet.

(2) Consider when you strike a gong! By hitting the gong with another metal you have transferred energy to the gong. This energy causes the gong to vibrate. This vibration creates pressure around the gong. This pressure emanates from the vibrating gong and travels through the air as sound waves. Once again we see an energized object creating pressure around it, pressure which causes emanation or radiation. The sound that emanates from the vibrating gong does not contain any elements of the gong; neither does it contain any element of the original energy that you transferred to the gong by hitting it. At best you can say that the energy has been transformed from mechanical energy to sound energy. The mechanical energy remains on the vibrating gong, but the pressure that this vibration causes creates the sound energy that emanates from the vibrating gong. Once again, this emanating sound energy does not contain any element or particle of the gong, neither does it contain any element of the original mechanical energy. This is coarse analogy that faintly conveys the idea.

By the same token, the radiation of God; contains energy or is energy emanating from the Power that is God. This energy does not contain any particle or element of God. Neither is it the Power of God as such; rather it is pressure created by the Power of God; it is the power of God that propels or creates this energy. The Power of God remains in God and within God. What we call energy of power in the radiation of God is only pressure created or exacted by the Power that resides eternally in God. It is this power that propels the radiation into motion.

Actually we err when we talk about power and life outside of God. These are intricate qualities of God which remain with God and which creates the pressure that propels everything outside of God. True life is Power and Power is life. These two are one and cannot be dependent. Our lives and the lives of all creatures(from Divine to gross matter) are dependent on God and hence in reality not life, but a consequence of the life and Power of God.

The Words of the son of God, “I am the way, the Truth and the LIFE” is terribly deep when one considers it in the light of my explanation.

Consider that with God there is nothing finite. The Power, Light and Truth that is God is infinite. He is far beyond finiteness that He doesn’t even have a form. Hence the Grail Message refers to Him as Divinity unsubstantiate! Consider all types of substances imply a certain form, and all types of forms imply a certain finiteness. But God is completely infinite, hence unsubstantiate, without form; but His radiation, or the pressure that His Power creates is substantial. There is no way any substantial thing which already implies finiteness can carry a particle of that which is infinite and unsubstantiate. So in reality there only two things: God and His radiation. These two things cannot intermingle. The radiations flourish and thrive when left unhindered in the straight line motion that the pressure from the Power of God drives then. This straight line motion is the Will of God; hence the radiations follow the Will of God, propelled by the pressure of his power. That’s why we see a reflection of the qualities of God—Love, Justice, Purity, and etc.—in the radiations. Like I said to you in another thread long time ago, the whole of creation swing in the rhythm of God’s Love and Justice. All the radiations of God(from Divine substantiate to gross matter) swing in this pressure created by the power of God, and the rhythm of this pressure is Love and Justice. The closer a specie of God’s radiation is to the source of this pressure, the finer, purer, and more powerfully it swings in this rhythm or God’s will. This pressure permeates the entire creation, and even above creation; from Divine substantiate to coarsest gross matter. This is why the qualities of God(Love, justice, purity and etc.) are evidenced within His radiations.

This does not mean that these radiations carry elements or particles of God in any way. There is no Life and Power in the radiations; there is only one Life and Power and that is God.

Deep Sight:

The analogy of the sun failed because we could see that the sun contains some of the elements that it emanates.

The analogy was meant to convey an idea; and I think it did that very well. No analogy can truly and completely convey that which far above us—the relationship between God and His radiation.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:

It seems very simple and clear to me - to put it as simply as saying that all things proceed from God.

@Deepsight.
I disagree with your conclusion above. A better conclusion will be that the power that drives everything is the power of God or the power that proceeds from God.

First of all, radiation of God is not God or a part of God. Power creates pressure, it’s the pressure created by the power (God) that we call radiation of God. Even in the physical world, every system that is powerful radiates. An electric wire creates pressure around it when high electric currents pass through the wire. This pressure is not part of the wire neither is it part of the electric energy in the wire. Any energy that proceeds from this induced energy around the powerful wire cannot be traced back to the energy inside the wire. So even though X is a result of Y and Z proceeds from Y, Z cannot always be a part of X, traced back to X or carry any elements of X. Consider an electric transformer and how it works. Just placing a secondary coil near and energized primary coil is enough to induce electricity on the secondary coil. Anything proceeding from the secondary coil is not part of the primary coil. Energy works that way. Consider God as being the primary coil of a transformer, and all other beings as being the secondary coil of the transformer. Every energy in the secondary coil drives from the influx or pressure(radiation) created by the primary coil, and not part of the primary coil itself. Everything outside of God owes its existence in the radiation of God; and this radiation does not carry any part of God within it. This radiation is simply the pressure emanated by the Power, life and Light which reside only in God. If you don’t like the sun and its radiation analogy; then consider the relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer. Both are two different systems, not touching in any way; but the pressure or influx of energy in one drives the other. It can be likened to the relationship between God (The one and only power) and His radiation or creations.

From what I draw from the Grail Message, the radiations(from which creation later arouse) of God when untransformed and left within its natural boundary of the Divine plane remain unformed radiations; left this way, no created beings could have arisen from it. Divine substantial beings are different; because these were not created per-se. These are eternal beings, and having their origin in the radiation of God, hence are not parts of God themselves; only that they did not need the fiat “Let there be light” before they arouse.

Creation started with “Let there be light” when God allowed his radiations(That couldn’t take on form in the Divine plane) to proceed farther and took on form in the creative power of Imanuel, who is the words “let there be light” in living form. This is the transition necessary before creation could arise. Any being or creature that arises after this transition or within creation does not proceed, of their own accord, straight from the radiation of God. They had to pass through a transition first; this transition is the act of creation. The issue of being parts of God is totally out of the question; because the radiations of God are not parts of God like I already explained.

Just as potter collect clay from the earth to mold the clay to form a pot; this is the process of creating a pot. It will be wrong to say that pot proceeds straight from the ground or clay. What proceeds from the ground or clay is the material with which the pot is made. For the pot to arise, the clay had to be transformed by the hands of the potter.

In the analogy, the pot represents created beings (i.e. primordial spiritual beings) in creation; the earth and clay represents the radiation of God; and the potter represents the creative will of God, Imanuel. Thus only concerning top part of primordial creation and above it can one rightly say that everything proceeds from God; keeping in mind that this “proceeds” does not mean that they carry parts of God within them. The basic elements in primordial creation proceeds from the radiation of God and the forms are molded by the Will of God Himself, thus molded in accord with the will of God by the hand of God Himself.

In the case of human spirits(those that developed from spirit germs); it is different, For in this case the spirit germs is left to mold itself, make itself a copy of one of the Primordial spiritual being. The various wrong forms that arise in the process of the spirit molding or creating itself have absolutely nothing to do with God. The human spirit can only link itself with the creative will of God, if out of its free volition it decides to mold itself to become a replica of one of the prototypes molded by the creative will of God. The wrongly developed human beings do not proceed from God in anyway.

In this case, the molding is not done directly by the potter. The clay is left to mold itself against one of the prototypes molded by the potter. If the clay molds itself against something alien to the will of the potter, such a form arising from such wrong molding has nothing to do with the potter and does not proceed from Potter.

Therefore in subsequent creation, the basic elements proceeds from the radiation of God, not God Himself; but not all forms proceed from the will of God. For example, the earth, the way it is today both in form, and governance does not proceed from the will of God

The basic elements that make up everything proceeds from the radiation of God. For creation and everything in it to arise, the radiations of God had to be transformed first in the process of creation. And the radiations of God are not God neither are they parts of God.

The radiations themselves are only emernation or pressure created by the power that is God. Hence there is a gap between God and His radiation; in reality there is nothing in the vicinity of God. Anything originating from that radiation cannot be said to have proceeded from God in the maner that you are implying.

What I wrote here is only for those have read the Grail message, for Deepsite. If you are not familiar with the Grail Message, you may find it very hard to follow this post.

Thanks

m_nwankwo:

God is the creator of all all existence. One can also say that God is the living source of all that is. God is the living source of all energies. Thus there is God and the emanations (radiations) of God. All that was, is and will ever be has its origin in the emanations of God. Thus, God brought and will continue to bring creations into existence from his radiations because the radiations of God contain all the primordial elements which either instantaneously or by development result in the in the birth of creations. Life, Infinity, Immutability, Love, Truth, Time, Perfection, Omniscience, etc, are living attributes that resides in God. It is for this reason that these aforementioned attributes are unattainable by the radiations of God (creations and creatures that inhabit them). The radiations of God although containing all the primordial elements have to be pressed into union so that what floats in infinity as oceans of flame can cool off, precipitate into seeds, germinates by cosmic explosions resulting in myriads of material and non-material universes. This pressing into union, cooling off, amalgamation into cosmic seeds and explosion of these seeds results from an act of Gods Will. Thus rightly understood, all creations are simply a direct or indirect consequence of the act of will of God. Without a conscious act of Gods will, there will be no creations.

Yes, creations can be described as an expression or the work of God but a work or an expression of God is not God. Yes, the radiations are the natural emanations from God but the radiations of God from which existence springs forth is not God. Yes in the work of God, one will find reflections of the attributes that are in God. But these reflections like images are limited, the limitation imposed by the fact that they lack the unsubstantiated divine substance that is only in God. I oppose the view that God or a part of God is within his creations. What we find in all creations are simply radiations of God that have either taken form or are formless. An author is not the same as his books or inventions even though the mind of the author can be found in his books. Although it is a crude analogy, it faintly reflects the relationship between God and his creations. Even man is a coarse reproduction of the actual images or reflections of God.

All energies, in whatever form are simply derived from a definite specie of Gods radiations. To be more specific, the energies that propel material creations into motion and union are spiritual particles or radiations emanating from the the volition of the the actual images of God. Thus energy is spirit but a different specie of spirit to that that is Man. The spirit particles hold all the secrets of the origin of our universe and other universes. Matter is simply enveloped spirit particles. One can also say that matter is energy covered with the clock of material substances. When man is willing to receive in humility, then the secrets on how to strip matter of all material envelopes, laying bare the spirit particles will become know to some people. But such knowledge will be for the future. Now it will be laughed off or ridiculed.

God brought creations into existence and can also cause creation to cease to exist. God does not need or depend on his creations but his creations are absolutely dependent on God. God brought creations into existence as a living expressions of his love. Before creation, only God and his divine emanations were in existence. The emission and simultaneous attraction of the divine radiations of God back to the Godhead resulted in a void. It is into this cosmic void that creation was born into and continue to expand. Viewed from outside of creation this cosmic void is limited but the limit can never be reached even if all creations are to expand eternally. But viewed from within creation, the void is limitless and infinite. Best Wishes.

m_nwankwo:

Definitions and concepts cannot accurately capture what God is. In spite of this I will make an attempt in the knowledge that this definition is a very faint reflection of reality. God is the primordial source of all energy. One can also say that God is the primordial source of Life or that God is primordial Life or primordial Energy. Anything else that exists or will exist derive its life or energy from GOD. In other words, only GOD is alive, everything else derives there life from God. What scientists are conversant with are various forms of energy with material universe. There are energies in all creations, not just in material universe. These energies originated from the radiations of God. In material universe energies are secondly radiations of primordial spiritual beings created by God and these primordial spiritual beings are the actual image of God. The human spirit that is man is simply an image or a reflection of these primordial spiritual beings. The primordial beings are of unimaginable size that one of them can hold our entire material universe in the palm of its hands. And yet even these primordial beings are creatures of God. Best Wishes.

Finally a ray of Light descends into this thread. I completly agree with the above explainations.

@davidylan
Congratulations on your PHD. I wish to bag one too someday. At the moment, I can only dream of it. Kudos!!!!!!!

davidylan:

and this matter came from? Somehow its illogical that God is eternal but you believe matter is eternal on the basis of? strange.

Took the words right out of my mouth!!!! However I'm impressed that he admitted that matter only changes forms. What drives me crazy is when somebody claims that science has conclusively answered the question of how everything, including the fundamental elements make up the universe, was created -- the big slam. I'm happy I don't own a gun because each time I hear that I feel like shooting myself in the head.

The big slam only constitutes a stage in the eternal changes of forms that matter goes through.

Kay 17:

@davidlyan

i dont believe anything came from nothing. I think matter is eternal, and simply changes form.

I have already pointed out in another thread that most atheists cannever really avoid the God question, the question of an eternal entity or eternal creator, they only shift posts. What the believer attribute to an invisible non-physical God; atheists attribute to matter or the physical universe.

Your description of matter here is the same description some believers give concerning God, especially those believers who believe that God is the totality of everything that exists and that God is in everything in one form or another. You have only replaced the word "God" with "matter"

@plaetton
The above is as brilliant as it is educative. I'm particularly impressed your 2nd point where you talked about the brain and thoughts. To me that is in accord with what I already know about the laws of creation, the operation of the human brain and the nature of thoughts, which scientists are every moving close to completely apprehending.

I will research on the issue of heavy metals shifting their masses to another dimension. That is very interesting!

Thanks

plaetton:

I am repeating this again. Cause and des[/b]ign are no the same thing and should not be used interchangeably.
There bone of contention is design , not cause. That unknown conditons the big ban.g has never been in dispute. What is in dispute, and [b]needs to be proven, is that Big Daddy designed and purposefully lit the fuse .

OK You have a point in the above. But this position does leave you a true or strong atheist. It also does not imply that burden of proof rests on the theist, as long as the theist does not subscribe to any particular God, but believes in an external causer of the universe.

While I personally believe in a God and intelligent design, I have nothing against your above assertion. Because what ever goes beyond your assertion above has to be personal and involves the non-physical perception which cannot be proven by the physical. Hence from the philosophical and scientific perspective, what you said above cannot be called wrong. Speaking purely scientifically you are not wrong.

I respect the fact that you said that "unknown condition" but I am not aware that we here in this thread to prove the existence of big daddy. I always maintained that big Daddy cannot be proven by scientific means. You cant prove the non-physical with the physical.

I only quarrel with the people who claim that science has proved and answered the question about the origin of the universe, that science has proved that the universe created itself and required no external force in its creation. One must be open to the possibility of an external force or conditions which cannever be ruled out, and which science has not ruled out. Whatever one decides to call this external force or condition that commenced the universe is the individuals choice.

When philosophers say that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of him who affirms and not the person who denies; I think they reffer to the situation where one is accusing another person of something. One who asserts that Mr. 'A" is a thief, needs to proof his assertion; not Mr. "A" who only denies the assertion. One who denies need not shoulder the burden of proof, the burden rests on the shoulders of the person who accuses or affirms. I think this is the way they see it in legal proceedings.

But this does not apply when two people are saying things that does not imply an accusation on either of them. The philosophy only applies, I believe, among two people where one is accusing the other of something, and the other is denying that which he is being accused of. When that which is questioned, affirmed or denied has not has nothing to do with either parties, then the philosophy of burden of proof does not apply. I will give an example:

Two people are looking at a car. One says the car is green while the other says that the car is not. The burden of proof does not lie only with the one who asserts that the car is green. It lies with both of them. And more so with the person who denies that the car is green, if the greenness of the car has been observed many times by many others. In such a case saying that the car is green is simply asserting the obvious or the default position. The person who denies this obvious should shoulder the burden of proof.

I am not a philosophy major; what I said is what I observed from legal proceedings.

Thanks.

Kay 17:

Its like in a court of law, an existing law is always proven by whoever asserts despite the obvious.

Also, please carefully read what you wrote. "despite the obvious."?? Does the obvious needs to be proven If one asserts the obvious, what other proof does he need to provide??

Kay 17:

Its like in a court of law, an existing law is always proven by whoever asserts despite the obvious.

Very good! And how does one who asserts prove his assertion? By evidence. The one who sees a dead man and asserts that something or someone killed him, already provides enough evidence by showing the corpse of the dead man. And hence needs no further proof; but the one who asserts that nobody or nothing killed the dead man needs to provide evidence to back up his position.

The corpse is already enough evidence that a man was killed by something or someone. The existence of a mountain already is enough evidence that some external forces were at work, created or formulated the mountain. The fall of the twin towers in enough evidence that someone or something caused the fall. The existence of the man called Kay17 is already enough evidence that somebody or something gave birth to Kay17. These are simply default positions that need not proved anyfurther. And in each case there is always an external force.

The existence of the universe is already enough evidence that some external forces were at work during the formulation and creation of the universe.

Thanks

@kay17
I don't understand the above please explain to me. If a man is found dead, the default position is that something or somebody killed the man. No?
Another analogy: since Kay17 exists, somebody or something must have given birth to him. This is the default position since everybody has to be born. No?
Kindly explain.
Thanks

@wirinet

I completely get deepsight's argument in this case. The way I see it, complexity, design and etc. apart, those are not where the crux of the argument lies. It lies in the fact that, in an uncertain situation, one who opposes the “default position” needs to shoulder the burden of proof.

Deepsight completely nailed it perfectly when he brought up the “default position” argument. Demanding that opponents of the “default position” bear the burden of proof is not tantamount to demanding that one prove the negative.

A dead man is found in the street. The “default position” is that something or someone killed him. It is the person who claims that nothing killed the dead man that should shoulder the burden of proof, even though he asserts the negative. In this situation, the default position is that something or someone killed the man. This position is obvious and need not be proved any further because the existence of the dead man is enough evidence already. Those who ascribe to the default position may be asked to prove their position only if they maintain that a particular person, disease, and etc killed the dead man.

The same is applicable to a mountain or anything physical. The default position is that circumstances, which are always outside the mountain, created the mountain or caused its formation. One, who challenges this default position, has to shoulder the burden of proof.

Simply asserting the negative does not absolve one from shouldering the burden of proof. Otherwise Bin Laden could have gone to court and claim that nobody caused the collapse of the world trade center. Could he have been absolved if he had simply stated the negative?

If you claim that a particular God, gods and etc do not exist, then rightfully you need not shoulder the burden of proof of the particular God. Only those who ascribe to that particular God should carry the burden of proof. This case is different from asserting that nothing created the universe.

I have no problem with those who assert that a particular God did not create the universe, that the religious views are wrong. But one must agree that something outside the universe caused its formation, whether this thing is a living entity or not. But such a one may not be called a strong or a real atheist.

Here in this thread, we are not talking of which God, gods, and etc. We are strictly dealing with “the burden of proof.” In the case of the universe, the default position is that the universe was created, evolved, or formed by forces or circumstances that stand apart from the universe. Just as natural forces like wind, erosion, earth quakes, tectonic forces and etc, form mountains. These forces cannot the contained within the mountain itself.

The default position is that something else, other than thing in question, always had to contribute for the formation, creation, and evolution of the thing in question. Nothing comes from nothing! This is the default position, since the contrary has never been observed by anybody. The person who subscribes to this never-been-observed contrary, or the person who challenges the default position, should shoulder the burden of proof.

However you did make some fine arguments in your post.

Thanks

gotizsata:

@justcool
you are trying to force a God.
which is just like the "who created God if God always existed" paradox. It is an old card to play and rather juvenile to say the least,
So what there are gaps in science.
There is simply no better explanation.
my point here, is that in the range of what probably happened, Abraham's God is not even under consideration. It is out of the radar. So stop trying to force it.
Your casualty argument in regards to the "elements" has been disproved many times over and in many ways, so you are just wasting everyone's time by trying to bring it here. Why don't you read a few books, wikipedia first, we will all really appreciate that, so that you can give us informed replies. you seem to have taken the trouble to learn a few things, why not complete the circle.
And even if you do not find answers, it does not mean God exists. It means you don't know.

I don’t like it when people make false accusations. None of the things you said above came from any of my posts. Please kindly show me, by quoting me, where I suggested any of the things that you said above. Rather than just arguing for argument sake why don’t you give us a scientific explanation of the origins of the elements that constitute the universe?

Also I suspect an animosity, a desire to insult. I humbly refrain from replying to you henceforth. Thanks for advising me to read a few books, thanks for suggesting that my knowledge is incomplete. By the way we are here to deal with who should shoulder the burden of proof; this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the Abrahamic God.

Please I will never condescend to name calling, insults, and false accusations. Please desist from such.

Thank you.

Why is the above directed to me?? And how does it relate to the topic at hand?? How does relate to anything that I said in this thread??

Thanks

For those who use the big slam theory to defend their illogical view of the universe creating itself. The big slam theory does not imply the universe creating itself out of nothing. The big slam is only a stage in the development or evolution of the elements that make up the universe.

Prior to the big slam the universe or the elements that make up the universe existed in an extremely hot and dense state.

The big slam theory only explains the development of the universe or the elements that make up the universe and not the origin of these elements. It can be likened to change of state. Just as a block of ice when heated will change from the state of being solid to liquid; the solid ice will expand to liquid. A further heating will change it from a liquid to a gaseous state, which is tantamount to a further expansion. Each change of state does not imply a creation of a new element. Water remains water, whether as a compact ice(solid) or and expanding vapour(gas).

There big slam theory does not support the illogical conclusion that the universe created itself. When scientists refer to the big bag as the origin of the universe, they mean the origin of the current state of the universe, and not the creation of the fundamental elements of the universe. These elements existed as a singularity prior to the big slam. The origin of these elements remains unkown by science which can only observe them change state.

^^^^^
Sir, I try not to respond to posts like the above but my love for science would not let me keep quiet now. Stop using science to promote your very unscientific views. Science makes it clear that nothing creates itself. Such would be a violation of the law of thermodynamics.

Why don't we keep to science Why bring in Abrahamic God, Noah's ark and etc What has these things got to do with the topic at hand Does proving that all animals won't fit into an ark proves that the universe created itself

We are not here, in this thread, to validate or annul the validity, of the Abrahamic God; we are to to determine who should shoulder the burden of proof, concerning the issue of creation of the universe. Who should shoulder this burden of proof; the one who asserts the well known principle of something being created by another thing, or the one who asserts the never seen, never observed, and illogical idea of something creating itself?

Give me scientific laws that validate the illogical and very unscientific conclusion that the universe created itself. Or show me an example where a single substance expands or changes state without and external force or impetus from the outside. Or give me an example where science have observed something creating itself.

Please don't put words into the mouth of science. When it comes to the origin of the universe, as in creation of the elements that make up the universe, science still does not know. Science has not up till date conclusively validate or authenticate any of the various speculations by scientists.

Thanks.

I do not think that I need to reply the response I got from my post, I humbly refrain in other to avoid unhealthy back-and-forth argument. Besides I think the objections raised were treated already in my post and elsewhere in this thread.

One thing that nobody has ever been able to prove is the illogical conclusion that the universe created itself. The religious view of an invisible God apart; the conclusion that the universe created itself is unsound scientifically. Ridiculing the religious view of an invisible God does not make the illogical view that the universe created itself right. If this illogical conclusion holds any water, then proponents would not need to revert to ridiculing God to defend their view. They should defend it scientifically, especially when they claim to be disciples of science.

One thing that is scientifically valid is that nothing creates itself, evolves, or comes in existence without an external force. One must be able to admit that whatever caused the universe must be an external force, a force whose origin is not within the universe.

Whatever one decides to call this force is the person’s choice.

In my own view, I have always maintained that the burden of proof should be shouldered by the one who claims that the universe was uncaused, uncreated, or has always existed; and hence requiring no creator.

This is not a question of proving the negative but rather a question of proving an unsubstantiated assertion.

One who says that the universe was uncaused, was not created and etc, ascribes a quality or an ability to the universe. He should shoulder the burden of proving that the universe has this quality or ability. Hence the burden of proof lies with that atheists and not the theist. Since the existence of something is already enough proof to conclude that that thing was created, formed or placed there by a process or an outside force.

I have already said this in another thread where I engaged with thehomer.

One who enters a city immediately begins to wonder who built the city, who formed the city and etc. No sane person would enter a city and entertain the idea that the city has always existed, and hence uncaused or uncreated. The same is applicable to a house, mountain, desert, rivers and etc. The process of their formation or creation can be observed and logically explained.

It is this basic idea of everything being caused by a process or an external force that drives science into great discoveries. Science believes in a cause of everything, a logical explanation of a process through which everything came into being. A scientist looks at a rock and tries to find out the processes that lead to the formation of the rock. And in all natural process there is always an external force, without which there can be no movement.

This is the very basic difference between a shaman and a scientist. A shaman sees a mountain and believes that the mountain is a supernatural phenomenon that defies the laws of nature, an unexplainable phenomenon, or a god that has always existed. He may even start worshipping the mountain, and will discard any attempt to logically explain the origin of the mountain as sacrilegious.

One who says the universe is uncaused by an external force has ascribed a quality to the universe; the quality of not requiring a causer, a quality that has not been observed anywhere in the universe. The burden of proof should be on such a person, he has to prove that the universe possess the quality or the ability of not requiring a creator, a process of creation or formation by an external force.

One who believes that the universe is caused or created carries fewer burdens of proof, because everything in the universe has been observed to have a cause, a formation, a process of creation through natural forces which always act as external forces during the formation or creation of the thing in question.

The way I see it, it is not a question of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof has always remained with the atheist, who ascribes unnatural quality or ability to the universe.
Thanks.

plaetton:

Outside of the universe, space would be a vacuum, there would be no frame of reference for time, and therefore time would not exist. Consciousness uses the universe to give frames of reference to time . Since time and the universe are intertwined, there is only one time and that is the duration of consciousness.

Now this is scientifically impossible. Scientifically speaking there is nothing like outside of the universe. The big slam did not occur into a preexisting physical universe or space; everything in the universe including space and what science calls time started with the big slam. Prior to the big slam space did not and could not have exsisted; I'm speaking strictly scientifically here.

Vacuums are also physical phenomena which cannot exists without the universe; hence every vacuum is within the universe. Vacuum is space without matter; vacuums contain space, and since space and time are one, saying that there is no time in a vacuum may not be very logical.  Especially keeping in mind that you agree that space and time are intertwined.

Also, I don't know if one can say that scientific time is duration of consciousness. Especially keeping in mind that science agrees that time existed in the universe millions of years before the first conscious creature evolved.

Also coming up with stuff like outside the universe, what makes you different with one who believes in the nonphysical? Is this "outside of the universe" of yours physical? If so how then is it outside of the universe. Especially keeping in mind that everything physical belongs to the universe, or what the scientist calls the universe.

Thanks

plaetton:

Delightful argument:
Time and space are intertwined. I speculate that at some point they are one and the same.

Scientifically speaking, the above is correct. Deep sight this is problem you will encounter when you arrive at the conclusion that: “Time is still time”

Time is still time.

In my perception, this is not so! Scientific time is most definitely not the same thing with the layman’s time or the time that we all perceive intuitively.

If we agree to the conclusion that both are the same then plaetton wins that augment; because time as science perceives it cannot be disconnected with space. It is one of the dimensions of the universe. Space, as well as time and all the dimensions of the universe were born during the big slam.

The space and time in our universe were born at the big band; or one can equally say that physical space and time were borne during the big slam. There was no physical space before the big slam; the big slam commenced the expansion of space.

One must separate the physical from the nonphysical; one who believes in the nonphysical must not look for it within the physical. Everything in our universe, including space, time, stars and planets are physical and started with the big slam.

Thanks.

@Kay 17
Thanks for addressing my post. Sorry about my late reply, I've been very busy.

Kay 17:

From Justcool

What consists of the spiritual is expected to not be physical, otherwise it would be physical. i believe that if the spiritual is observable and measurable to an extent, then its physical.

How you came to this belief beats me. Whoever said that the spiritual is not observable and measurable? The spiritual is not just a feeling or imagination; the spiritual real is tangible, even more tangible than the physical. Only that the spiritual is of an entirely different species than the physical. The spiritual can be observed and measured by the spiritual or spiritual means, and not by physical means. Because owing to the difference in species, the physical cannot interact directly with the spiritual.

Man’s core, the true man, is spiritual; hence man can observe and measure the spiritual by means of his spiritual body or his core.

Kay 17:

The layman and the scientist both observe time, but provide different definitions with varying details. The layman is not merely perceiving divine time, but very possibly the same subject as the scientist. The layman by his qualifications is not in the best position to develop his view of time, it's more like crude intuition.

Not necessarily. Just because they use the same expression doesn’t mean that they are talking exactly about the same thing. Science borrows terms that already exist and use it to label scientific concepts; this is perhaps to make science more interesting. I will give you an example. The ancient romans believed in the existence of Neptune. To them Neptune is a god, the god of the oceans. The lay and ancient romans had believed in this Neptune many years before modern science was born. When modern science discovered the eight planet from the sun, she(modern science) decided to name this planet Neptune, after the roman god of the oceans and the seas.

Now when the modern scientist and the lay ancient roman are talking about Neptune, they are not talking about the same thing. One is talking about a planet and the other is talking about a god; one is talking science while the other is talking mythology or religion.

It will be very misguided to try to disprove the ancient or mythological Neptune based on the scientist discoveries of the planet Neptune. This is what posters are doing in this thread.

The layman coined the word “time” even before modern science was born; the lay man had a conception of time before modern science was born. Just as the ancient romans had a conception of Neptune before modern astronomy was born.
While both conceptions may be wrong or right, they are not mutually exclusive because they are not necessarily the same thing. Mythological or astrological Neptune remains the god of the oceans, while astronomical Neptune remains a planet. One cannot disprove the other; they are two different things.

The lay man’s conception of time remains what it is, the continuum into which events happen; while scientific conception of times remains a dimension of motion of physical objects or the physical universe.

Just as the mythological or astrological Neptune is not confined within the tenants of astronomical Neptune; real time or the layman’s time is not confined within the tenants and observations of scientific time. Real time or layman’s time did not start with the big bang, only the scientific time did. Saying that the layman’s time started with the big bang is like saying that the mythological Neptune started with the discovery of the astronomical Neptune.

Thanks.

Kay 17:

Lay-man's time/ real time and scientific concept of time discuss the same thing but in disagreement. A disagreement in perception like the light (particle or wave) issue. Clearer definitions with better demonstrations will badly be needed.

That's one way to look at it. The scientist is dealing with time within our universe, or within the physical realm. But the lay man perceives that the concept of time does not have to end within this particular universe or within the physical realm. Its like two people siting in a moving car; one is dealing with the motion of the car, while the other perceives that motion doesn't have to end with that particular car, and hence dealing with the motion of the entire earth around the sun.

One is confined to the motion of the car, because his instruments for detecting motion are incapable of detecting motion outside the car. While the other is able to detect, not only the motion of the car, but the motion of the entire earth. Another person may even be able to detect the motion of the entire solar system around the center of the universe. While another may be able to detect the motion of the entire universe around its axis.


Thus it is a question of perception or the range of perceptive ability. One speaking from the spiritual perspective deals with a larger frame of time than one speaking from the scientific perspective which is confined to the physical realm.

From Divine perspective, time (The real time) is infinite and stands still. Man as a spiritual being as the ability to vaguely perceive of this time that is infinite and stands still. This he can only perceive intuitively, a gross material  or intellectual perception of it is impossible. The brain can never conceive or perceive it.

Thanks

KAG:

That's all well and good; however, when someone starts a thread or line of discussion that is heavily centered on science, then it becomes a given that, unless defined otherwise, the scientific definitions of terms hold sway. The onus is on the person supposedly using "lay man's terms" to define their terms and ensure that they aren't mistaken for the scientific ones.

Further, I don't know what "time" Deep Sight is, or was, talking about. He doggedly refused to provide any workable definitions or evidence that could have cleared that up. So, what do you mean by this "real time" that everybody knows? Any way of concretising it?

While I agree that time is predicated on motion, I disagree that light was the fastest thing that scientists could conceive. The special theory of relativity made provisions for massless particles that could travel faster than the speed of light: hence, tachyons.

Relatively.


Evidence?

Yes they did, but so did a term like "electric". I I started a discussion on electricity with references to scientific reports, but I meant something other than the scientific understanding of eletricity, then I would have no grounds for complaint if others erred on the side of science. It isn't a case of marrying disparate comprehensions of terms. It's a case of no one has declared these lines of discussion exclusively theological nor philosophical.

Why?

Concretise that concept and ground it in something tangible.


Again, science discussion. Scientific terms until otherwise disputed and alternate terms defined.

Yes, I have said as much about time. To wit, I wrote previously:

"If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen."

The fact remains that Deep Sight introduced the"totality of time itself, which is infinite, etc". Which he has so far failed to define nor provide an inkling of evidence or tangibility that would make it intelligible. If you subscribe to his conception, then may I ask that you do what he will not?


What is real time, by your estimation? If it seems like I have asked that question several times, it is because you've used that phrase several times without offerring a defintion . . . or evidence . . . or really anything other than the phrase being somehow different from time as a scientific concept.

Thank you, too.

@ KAG

Thanks for addressing my post, you raised very fair points and I will address them accordingly.

You asked me to define what I mean by "real time," "lay man's time" or the "time" that deep sight is talking about. I offered a definition in my post. I wrote. “Time can be defined as the continuum onto which events happen.” This is the time that everybody knows; this is usually what people mean when they say “time.” And keep in mind that the word “time” existed before modern science. If you go back two thousand years ago and ask any man what “time” means he will not tell you that it is a dimension of motion. The idea of “time” being a dimension of motion is purely scientific, it is a scientific model.

Light was the fastest thing that scientists could conceive of at that time. I.e. at the time of Einstein. Perhaps I made a poor choice of words, and for this I apologize. What I meant was that light was the fastest thing that scientist could measure at that time, and hence could concieve of at that time. Or better, the speed of light was the fastest thing that scientist could measure at that time. And I said say it this way in my post:

This scientific concept of time is referenced to the speed of light because up till now “light” is the fastest physical phenomenon that science has observed.

The evidence I have on the idea that real time existed before the big slam lies in my definition of “Real time.” I defined “real time as the continuum onto which events happen. Since the big slam is an event and every event happen on or within time. Time must have existed onto which this event (the big slam) happened. This is only a logical speculation; even prominent scientists have made this speculation. The difficulty in proving this concept or experiencing the “real time” lies in the fact that while trapped within this time frame, its difficult impossible to experience the outside time frame at least with physical means.

You are right about electricity; the same is applicable to scientific terms like “time”, “work” and etc. It’s like the electric circuits that we draw and analyze. From the circuits we predict the behavior of electricity. But this circuit that we draw is only a model which may or may not correspond exactly to reality. To make problems easier to solve, in circuit analysis we invent things like Ideal voltage sources and ideal current sources; but in reality there is nothing like an ideal voltage or current source, because every source has its own internal resistance.  I’m using electricity for an example here because you seem to understand electricity. The point that I’m trying to make is that a lot of scientific terms are models which helps scientists predict and analyze reality, these models may or may not correspond exactly to reality.

The problem is that pseudo scientists try to force reality to conform to a scientific model; or restrict their perception of reality to the scientific model. This is the wrong way to use science. Real Scientists keep fine-tuning these models to correspond more and more to reality, and not otherwise.


And of course “real Time” has to be infinite, because there is no limitation to the amount or number of events that can happen. Time is infinite, those allowing an uncountable number of events to occur. This is really hard to put into words but II hope you perceive what I’m trying to put across. Real time stands still; it is infinite and endless. Events happen within it, it is the duration of this evens, i.e. the speed of these physical events that scientist call time. You see why the scientific time is limited, it’s limited to the duration of our particular universe; but real time has nothing to do with motion, motions happen within it, it simply has no beginning and it’s endless.

Thanks

KAG:

If verified, it won't change what we know of time. At least, I don't see how it could. It might not even affect Einstein's theory of relativity, especially if it is discovered that neutrinos can behave like, or even become, tachyons. That's my initial instinct, anyway.

It will help people see that scientific terms are not exactly the same as the lay man’s terms. I have said this many times, that often scientific terms should not be viewed in the ordinary sense. Everybody knows what “time”; the “time” that Deep sight is talking about; the “time” that everybody intuitively knows, but very difficult to put in words. This “time” is what I refer as to “the real time” or “the lay man’s time” But when science talks about “time” they are not talking about the layman’s time or the real time.

Of course every rational person knows that the idea that time was born at the big slam is not possible in view of the real “time” or the lay man’s time. What science calls time is simply a dimension of motion, or a derivative of motion; a derivative of the speed of light to be more exact. Scientific time is referenced to the speed of light because at that time light was the fastest thing the scientist can conceive of.

Hence if anything moves at the speed of light, time becomes stand still in respect to that thing. Just as when two cars move at the same speed, they appear standing still to each other. And consequently, if anything can move beyond the speed of light, that thing will be time-traveling because it’s moving faster than time, i.e. moving backward in time.

The fact some things can move beyond the speed of light (a fact that I strongly believe that will soon be confirmed by science) will only show people that scientific time is different from real time. Because such particles, which can move faster than the speed of light, scientifically speaking, are moving backward in time. Imagine two cars “A” and “B” in motion, if car “A” speeds faster than the “B”, it will appear as if car “B” is moving backwards; judging from the motion frame of car “A”.

Real time, intuitive time, or the lay man’s time, I believe is what Deep sight has been talking about, which obviously cannot be born at the slam. This time, real time can be defined as the continuum onto which events happen. This time existed before the big slam, indeed the big bag is just an event that happened within it. Only that the big slam commenced the physical time or the scientific time which scientist reference with the speed of light.

People keep trying to marry scientific concepts with ordinary concepts. These ordinary concepts like “time”, “work” and etc. existed before modern science. Modern science only borrowed these terms to define scientific concepts.

Deep sight’s notion of time is right. He is talking about the real time, the lay man’s time. Posters are refuting his argument with the scientific concept of time which is only limited to the physical, i.e. the duration of physical events. This scientific concept of time is referenced to the speed of light because up till now “light” is the fastest physical phenomenon that science has observed. I will give an analogy: Deep sight is talking about motion in general, posters are refuting his argument by talking about the motion of a particular car. Of course just as motion is not limited to a particular car, time is not limited to this our particular universe. If there are other universes, their time frames will be different. And of course the motion of a particular car is born the minute the car started moving, yet the car itself is on earth which is in turn in motion; by the same token, the speed or duration of events (which science calls time) in our universe was born with the big slam; but even the big slam is an event which occurred in a lager time frame.

But I think every good scientist knows that the concept of time is not limited the scientific time. Science creates models that help them visualize and represent certain phenomena in numbers so that they can be solved mathematically to predict or give an idea of the behavior of the phenomena. It will be very misguided to expect that the phenomena itself is limited to numbers and scientific models. Certain phenomena in nature can never truly be captured on the blackboard or in a test tube. Real Time existed before the big slam will still exist afterwards.

Thanks.

Interesting serious of videos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmcbjLVPKc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAUA967ldrU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMJBNYcHbJw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5et696cP50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f40oAAmeyA

Facts from the videos.
96% of the universe is made up of dark energy and matter, things that we know nothing about.
Science has not directly proven that dark matter particles exist, many suspects but no answers.

Implications for us in the religious forum.
(1) Those that claim that the universe is stricky physical are actually wrong even from the scientific perspective.
(2) It is possible for something which has not be proven by science to exist.

So the fact that science has not proven that God or the non-physcal exist means absolutely nothing.

Thanks

Here is another thought provoking one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeFuc-qFKoA&feature=related

Please pay attention to what is said at 7:44 in the video: "Reality cannot be inherently understood as per the messages we receive from our human senses alone".

This is not just a religious view; it has been confirmed by quantum physicists. Where does this leave people who laugh at other for believing in something that they cannot experience with their human sense, something that science cannot prove? Isn't science based purely on human perception? Perception is not reality!

At 8:28 it hints that humans create thier own reality by experiencing or observing. So the fact alone that people experience something disqualifies anybody to claim that that thing does not exist. The experiencing alone is enough to create that thing, to create that reality. With all these scientific discoveries in mind, why do pseudo scientists still claim that God, god or gods of the various cultures and religion do not exist? Such claims can only come from religious indoctrination; such dogmatic religions like strong atheism.

From the scientific perspective, what is existence? What exactly is reality?

Thanks

Here is another interesting one. Shows how vibrations create forms. Even sound vibrations creates forms!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DGPV7SB88c&feature=related

Here is another interesting one: Here is another thought provoking one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeFuc-qFKoA&feature=related

Please pay attention to what is said at 03:05 to 05:30. Pay attention to the effects that thoughts have on water; it creates wavelike forms on water, forms corresponding to the nature of the thought. If thoughts can affect very heavy gross physical matter like water. What makes you think that thoughts cannot gether lose fine gross matter and mold it into forms corresponding to the nature of the thought?

Keep in this video is purely confirmed science. I scrutinized the science discussed before posting it.

Now tell me what you think?

Deep Sight while you are at it please carefully watch and listen to this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51VOHrxtlT0&feature=related


Interesting!! Isn't it? I believe I was deliberately and purposely led to that video. Please watch and tell me what you think.

Thanks

This thread is a branch-off of the following thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-729953.128.html, where I wrote the following to all4naija:

“Not only does matter transform to energy; that’s one way to look at it. Matter and energy are actually the same thing. Matter is condensed energy or matter is made up of energy. The fact that energy can condense into matter does not mean that there is no creator. The question remains who created the energy or where did it come from; the question of a creator or the question of an outside force or energy for remains open.

You are right that there are physical things not seen by the physical eyes. That’s the point I have been making to thehomer. It will be very uneducated for a creature to say that existence ends with its perception, that what it does not perceive does not exist. Each creature has a limited perception of reality and no creature can perceive everything that exists. I never said that whatever was not perceived with the physical eyes are spiritual. We are only like TV’s or radios, each TV or radio is tuned or designed to receive a particular range of frequency. There could unlimited number or range of frequencies so no TV should laugh at another for claiming to receive something that others do not.

Just as there are so many physical things that we do not see, it is also possible that there are so many things non-physical as well. It is only a logical conclusion. We should never view reality as a concrete limited or fixed thing, after all everything is energy. In reality nothing is tangible or solid like we perceive it.

If you tell the ancient man that a clear glass of water has uncountable number of microorganisms not seen with the physical eyes, he will not believe you. To him, if he doesn’t see it then it doesn’t exist! But science has told us that this is not so; that even within the physical realm there are almost uncountable ranges, frequencies, or dimensions. It is also logical to expect that there are countless dimensions that are not even physical. Why most everything has to stop with the physical? If we put an end to the range of existence which we call physical, how are different from the ancient that puts an end to existence based on what his eyes can see?

After taking all these into consideration, you how wrong it is to laugh at somebody just because he/she claims to perceive something non-physical? Perhaps there is a dimension that is non-physical! Don’t we live in a holographic universe?”

I think the following video, which is based purely on science, will help in opening people’s mind. A scientist should be open to the idea that perhaps there are dimensions that are not physical. It is unfortunate that those who do not believe in the non-physical often use science to defend their views. In this video we see genuine and honest scientists talking real science, although not confirming that the non-physical exists, it opens the listeners mind to the possibility.

Please enjoy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTim2L5M6h4

seyibrown:

You said it all, Bro! We waste valuable time and resources trying to govern our selves without God, and history has repeatedly shown the futility of doing this! The present is telling us we have not been doing it right! An ungodly government - democracy, theocracy or whatever - will take us nowhere!

Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.

When people who are not aligned with God's will form and run a government, the people will suffer under any such governance!

Thanks my sister. Your input is profound as well.