₦airaland Forum

simmy:
@kag
i think what aio is actually trying to say ( which is what ive been trying to say')is that perfect situations cannot exist in nature. nature tries to gype us into seeing what actually doesnt exist.

What? Why can't perfect situations exist in nature?

an example
you can cut 2 inches into two to get one inch apiece. the one inch can be cut into two to get half an inch. if mathematics was perect you would be able to cut until you get to zero. but that is not the case. u theoretically can continue cutiing forever!!!! isnt that a bit of a contradiciton in other words, in reality zero does not exist! its just a concept introduced by the human mind to cope with nature. by extrapolation 1 inch plus 1 inch does not equal a perfect 2 because a perfect 2 does not exist. in actual fact 1 inch plus one inch equals 1.999999999999999 to infinity.or 1 apple plus 1 apple does not equal 2 apples because the 2 apples are not symmetrical and cannot be, hope that made sense

That's why I said in the macro world, at least, 1 + 1 does equal 2. The theoretical value of zero as a concept is different from that of 1 and 1 giving 2. Further, as to your example, of course 1 inch plus 1 inch doesn't eqaul a perfect 2 inches; however, a perfect 1 inch plus another perfect 1 inch will equal a perfect 2. In any case, it's the micro-world that prevents the perfection in an inch.

Also, 1 apple plus another apple does equal two apples. They don't have to be symmetrical to be two apples.

only in a singularity where all laws break down can you get 'perfect' situations, where 1 and 1 really equals 2.
two objects can only be perfectly symetrrical if they are so indistinguishable that their is absolutely no way of telling the difference in both as regards space in which they occupy and dimensions.

Okay?

Pastor AIO:
Correcto! In this state All things are a Unity. I reckon Mathematics would be perfect if 1 plus 1 actually equalled 2. But Alas! 'Tis not so.

That's interesting. What do you mean? In the macro-world, at least, as far as I can tell, one plus one does equal two.

simmy:
@kag
1. a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry. A singularity is a phenomenon where all laws break down and symettry is absolute. a 'perfect vacuum is a singularity.

For the first, you state that "a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry". What exactly would be symmetrical in a perfect vacuum. Are you sure you are talking about the right thing?

Second, no, a perfect vacuum isn't a singularity.

2. semantics asides, there are different types of symetrry (your mirror image for instance) but absolute symetry occurs when image 1 is totally indistinguishable from image 2 in ALL respects, which by the way is scientifically impossible since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, in a singularity, since ALL laws break down, this can happen.

What on Earth are you talking about? That one thing may be indistinguishable from another does't indicate that they are in the same space. By the way, you do realise that to posit an argument that objects are symmetrical in a singularity is to indicate that a singulaity is a something, right?

3. the space that exists in the atom is not empty space.

Okay. Fair enough.

simmy:
No, everything doesn't become everything, but the laws that we know do break down, when a singularity is involved. Those of course don't make it nothing (even the notion of "everything bcoming everything" indicates a something).

the point where all laws break down rendering all things indistinguishable is the closest you ll ever get to a definition of nothing.

Actually, no. A perfect vacuum is the closest you'll ever get to a definition of nothing. Singularities, with the properties they possess are somethings.

How so?
how so? uniformity is relative. absolute uniformity is absolute!

I'm not sure i understand. To what or how is uniformity relative?

Yes, it indicates that "I" as a thinking subject exists and "I" am involved in thought of contrasting two different ideas. However, that isn't an indictment on the idea of nothing or nothingness, as thinking about those ideas are necessary for several philosophical cosiderations
this argument really depends on your definition of nothing, i still maintain that nothing is just a concept. the universe is yet to provide us with an example of nothing. (empty space isnt nothing)

I agree that nothing exists as a concept - which was the point of this segment.

Oh, no, I know all that, but within the atom is a great deal of nothing. Protons, neutrons and electrons make a relatively small part of the atom.

like i said earlier, empty space isnt nothing a lot of 'something'works through empty space.

But is the internal part of an atom "empty space"? Yes there are things within the atom, but there's also a lot nothing that can be deciphered within the atom.

imhotep:
Think about this. When Einstein concieved atomic energy in 1905 (40 years before the atom was split), he was playing with beings of reason.

I dont' think that is right, as atomic energy, and many aspects of its formulation in physics did exist independently of Einstein. The splitting of the atom had little to do with it.

A being is "that which is".

I asked what the word "exist" means in your sense. However, let's take your conception of being. If a being is "that which is", then is anything that can be imagined a being? Further, would that make all inorganic things beings?

"Being of reason" are those things we play around with in our intellect. Roughly. The Wright brothers played around with aeroplanes in their minds, long before aeroplanes were built.

Which brings us back to: "So it doesn't really exist. That is, the existence of a "being of reason" isn't in the real, and is totally subject to subjctive imagination, yes? That's not my understanding of the word existence."

Does a man from the planet Krypton who flys and fights villians exist in the real? Hardly. It is inately understandable that the character with those traits is not only fictional but can only be realised subjectively through engagement of the imagination.

imhotep:
God is being. He is. He did not come from anywhere, he is not going anywhere. "I am who I am" = > Exodus 3:14.
"Before Abraham ever was, I AM" => John 8:58

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Now, I may not agree with your conception, but it would constitute an answer

Because you existed before KAG.

Yes.

Because otherwise we will live with the absurdity of the effect preceding the cause. Eg a son being older than his biological father.

Time paradox. The son going back in time could play part in the birth of the father.

imhotep:
A "being of reason" exists ----> in the reasoning faculty of the thinker.

So it doesn't really exist. That is, the existence of a "being of reason" isn't in the real, and is totally subject to subjctive imagination, yes? That's not my understanding of the word existence.

What's your understanding of the word "exist"?

I am posting this from the abstract of philosopher's (Francisco Suárez) publication =>

====================================
Beings of reason or non-existent objects have always been a source of mind-boggling paradoxes that have vexed philosophers and thinkers in the past and present.

Consider Bertrand Russell's paradox: if A and B are not different, then the difference between A and B does not subsist. But how can a non-entity be the subject of a proposition?

Or Meinong's paradox: There are objects of which it is true that there are no such objects.

At the root of these troubling conundrums are two basic questions:
What are beings of reason?
What kind of existence do they have?

Francisco Suárez was well aware that a solution to the metaphysical questions concerning the essential character of beings of reason and their ontological status would serve as the key to solving the puzzles and paradoxes just described.

A solution to these metaphysical questions would also bring about an understanding of how we talk about beings of reason and other problems that they give rise to in the philosophy of language.

In this paper, I present Suárez's view on the nature and ontological status of beings of reason and clarify some of the following questions:
What kind of beings (entia) are beings of reason?
What kind of being (esse) do beings of reason have?

This latter concern is related to the following metaphysical issues:
What are real beings?
What is the nature and ontological status of possible beings?
What is the distinction between real beings, actual beings, and possible beings?
=============================

none of that explains what a "being of reason" means. It gives an abstract information of why it may have been conceive, but no meaning. Do you not know what the term means?

imhotep:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

There you go. No need to resort to avoiding the specific and, instead, tracing the orders before it. The same concept applies to the op. So, your answer could range from "[I conceive of] my god as needing no origins" to "humans created gods" or even Pastor AIO's.

No strawmen here.
KAG originated from you, you came from your parents, who came from their parents, who came from their parents -------- who came from God. Simple.

KAG originated from the person "me". That's the answer. The rest of your post is irrelevant to the original question.

The fact still remains that every cause MUST precede the effect it causes.

Why?

imhotep:
Plenty of relevance. You can hate/love a fictional character precisely because he/she/it exists ---> as a being of reason.

Once again, no one can love/hate a being that does not exist.

In what sense are you using the word "exist"? Also, what does a "being of reason" mean?

In my understanding of the word "exist", fictional characters do not exist. What's yours?

imhotep:
Not enough to get anyone out of the maze.

What maze? It's a simple question relating to something specific. What does John 3:16 state?

Good. You had to exist outside Nairaland BEFORE you could create KAG inside Nairaland.

However, KAG the character didn't exist before the existence of the website. So, if someone were to inquire specifically about the origin of KAG, an answer could be given without strawmen.

But you were supporting the view that God (who was not existing) suddenly created Himself. Wierd.

That wasn't what I got from it, nor was what you've asserted my response to it.

imhotep:
huxley's passionate hatred of God points to the very existence and powerful activity of God.
One cannot hate Someone that does not exist.

KAG:
Nonsense. I have come across several people that have hated fictional characters.

imhotep:
Fictional characters exist --> as beings of reason.
Same with many of the concepts of pure mathematics.

So, no relevance.

imhotep:
Fictional characters, as well as many concepts in pure mathematics are "beings of reason".

So no relevance.

imhotep:
Really. Well, let me lay it out for you :

What does John 3:16 say?

Very very very absurd. Might as well argue that KAG gave birth to himself.

In a sense that's exactly what happened, as "KAG" is simpy one aspect of my person. It's a representation that i have created on a website called Nairaland.

imhotep:
Have you heard of "beings of reason" (in Metaphysics) before?

No I haven't. Relevance?

imhotep:
Not a strawman, but a mind boggling reality that you cannot escape from.

No, a strawman. It's no different from claiming that one can't answer what John 3:16 says because then you'd have to know the origin of the Gospel of John, then the origin of the Bible, then the origin of the authors, then the originof the origin of the authors parents, etc. It dodges a specific.

Every cause must precede the effect it causes. For God to create Himself, He must precede Himself. This is absurd.

It's not that absurd. I don't buy it, but it's not that absurd.

simmy:
@kag
read your post and the link u provided. behind all the long winded statements is a simple fact, a singularity is that point where all laws break down and cease to function, everything becomes everything, in very simplistic evryday language thats what a singularity is!

No, everything doesn't become everything, but the laws that we know do break down, when a singularity is involved. Those of course don't make it nothing (even the notion of "everything bcoming everything" indicates a something).

Isn't that a tautology? Can something that is uniform be any more absolutely uniform?

no its not tautology. absolute uniformity is very different from uniformity.

How so?

That's wrong. Zero does exist in mathematics. Nothing can exist philosophically (for one thing, the idea of "existence preceding essence" would be impossible without some form of nothingness). Even by your criterion, nothing can exist, because it can be contrasted with the somethings we can already perceive

you re right. just one small problem. that im trying to grapple with the concept of nothiness proves that something exists. so philosophy assumes its unnecesary to try n work the logic in your direction.

Yes, it indicates that "I" as a thinking subject exists and "I" am involved in thought of contrasting two different ideas. However, that isn't an indictment on the idea of nothing or nothingness, as thinking about those ideas are necessary for several philosophical cosiderations.

T[b]hat's all wrong. For what it's worth, a good example of nothingness is to be found in the make-up of an atom. Within an atom there is a great deal of nothing[/b]

what are you? old school? , there s so much in a n atom. protons neutrons , and their are particles that have been discovered that exist in sub atomic particles.

Oh, no, I know all that, but within the atom is a great deal of nothing. Protons, neutrons and electrons make a relatively small part of the atom.

imhotep:
And you are still trapped in the maze of Infinite Regress.


--- of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin ----

Let me know when you decide to free yourself.

Um, again, no. When it's addressed to a specific, one needn't dodge the question by appealing to the strawman of infinite regression. Look, even Pastor AIO managed to give his opinion on the idea: "Who created God? God created God. But what was God before he created God? He was God." Thereby nixing the urge to resort to infinite regression.

imhotep:
huxley's passionate hatred of God points to the very existence and powerful activity of God.

One cannot hate Someone that does not exist.

Nonsense. I have come across several people that have hated fictional characters.

Jagoon:
I have read the referenced sites and i must comment that the proof being claimed in the site is at best very shallow. i expected to read better evidence from a so called research institute. Personally i could give stronger irrefutable evidence than this attempt. It is shallow proofs like this that give Atheist and un believers ammunition to attack christian beliefs.

On this we agree.

The first and most obvious evidence of God is man himself. I am bringing us back to the topic of creation. The human body especially the human brain is the most sophisticated device known to science, the capabilities of the brain are limitless and is still being researched. My point being that going by the so -called theory of evolution, which suggests that living beings adapt to their environment and evolve along that line. the question is why would a man's brain capacity be limitless ( scientifically proven, the average man uses only 5% of his brain capacity in his life time) as in the brain is much more advanced than his environment requires? The simple answer lies in creation. And the reason for such advancement in the human brain can be found in genesis 1: 26 were God said let us make human beings in our image and to be "like us". This passage actually has a lot of implications and volume of books can be written on that statement alone, that statement is a very deep statement which really explains a lot of things but unfortunately for one reason or the other the church as completely ignored it. We don't appreciate or realise what God as done in creating us to be like him. If one were to truly understand what an ordinary man is capable of then you would have your complete evidence of GOD.

first, humyns aren't, in my opinion, evidence of the existence of gods. They are, instead, evidence of the existence of humyns.

Second, yes, organisms do adapt to their environments and humyns have adapted to many an ecosystem on Earth; however, I don't think the humyn brain is limitless. Further, that humyns use only 5% (the number usually cited is about 10%) of their brains, is false. Humyns use all of their brains.

JayFK:
lol this thread.

yo Kag where're you from?

Nigeria

st_nonymus:
Don't get me wrong KAG.You have a right to question whatever you read in the Bible.Its only through such questions that one finally arrives at a solid conviction.You just can't swallow things thrown at you.You've got to be sure you really believe them.

As for why the story is true,i don't know.Cant prove it,neither can i prove the reality of God or Jesus.Since i came to know God and his integrity,i believe the bible,even those parts that seem absurd.Whether i can prove the validity of that event or not is irrelevant to me.I don't see how that piece of information would make a difference in my life.

But if you still require answers ask God.And if God is real He will tell you whether or not the story is true.

That's fair enough. No gods have answered yet, though.

Negro_Ntns:
KAG,

Your depth of intelligence is acknowledged. However, this thread might not be sufficient for you to probe and explore critically and indepth the purpose and truth of God in the way you have inferred. I am sure you have an inner drive to know and the mental endurance to prolong the discussion on the origin of God. Open your own thread and ask the questions that you seek the conversation on. I promise to join you in that dialogue and I'm sure others as well like Imhotep and possibly Huxley will join you. Let's dig and exchange ideas and knowledge.

What do you think?

Sounds like a plan. What do you propose the title be?

imhotep:
The question about "the origin of God" is NOT a good question.

It puts the seeker on the road of Infinite Regress ----> you MUST also seek to find out the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin --------------------------------- of the origin of God.

The solution lies elsewhere.

You're still wrong.

simmy:
@kag
uniformity is not just one of the properties of a singularity. Absolute uniformity is!

Isn't that a tautology? Can something that is uniform be any more absolutely uniform?

A singularity be it gravitational or other is a phenomenom where something cancels out something perfectly, resulting in nothing.

Where are you getting your definition from? That's not the essence of a singularity. Gravitational singularities, for instance, "the rate of change of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity). That is, rather tha a negation to nothingness, an infinite increase in propert(y)(ies).

zero doesnt really exist in mathematics, its just a concept, an abstract, philosophically, its impossible for nothing to exist because there has to be something to contrast the nothing against.

That's wrong. Zero does exist in mathematics. Nothing can exist philosophically (for one thing, the idea of "existence preceding essence" would be impossible without some form of nothingness). Even by your criterion, nothing can exist, because it can be contrasted with the somethings we can already perceive.

Singularity is the closest physics can get to describe mathematically the concept of nothingess since it is impossible to represent nothing mathematically. So if a singularity is something it is only because our scientists are ill equipped to aptly describe the concept of nothing.
i hope that made sense!

That's all wrong. For what it's worth, a good example of nothingness is to be found in the make-up of an atom. Within an atom there is a great deal of nothing.

babaearly:
you ask stupid rhetorical questions.

have you ever wondered the complexity of the eye and its design?

Which eye? Did you have any specific type in mind?

what about the minute human cell and its wonders?

What about it?

why is there time and space?

Expansion of the Universe for the first, and initially inflation for the latter.

have you studied about the brain and its design? wow i can keep on talking.

So the brain and its design is the origin of gods?

imhotep:
But, we ARE LOOKING for the origins of the universe and all it contains. Keep this in mind.

No, we are looking for the origins of gods. Keep that mind. Discard your strawman.

For the second, no, not necessary an infinite regress. However, even if there is one, the earlier point still applies.

Infinite regress shall be your lot -> whether you choose the first one or the second one.

The first or second one of what? That it isn't necessrily or an infinite regression or that one needn't erect the strawman of an infinite regression when it's a question of the origin of a specific?

Infinite regress does not give peace of mind either. It really really ruffles and benumbs the mind.

The life of Pi: e

And this is a false conclusion.

Except it isn't, as I showed.

imhotep:
And I am supposed to believe this by faith? Not so?

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker's Guide even tells us the meaning of life.

=========
@huxley
Since you have faith in the resurrection of Douglas Adams, why not direct these your questions to him?

He wants to know what you think about the claims in your religion's book.

Pastor AIO:
They walked about having conquered death in Jesus mighty name. Haven't you heard of St. Germain. Or even Adam Monroe, aka Takezo Zensai. What was the name of that guy from Highlander? They are many many many.

Wasn't it Claire that resurrected? Have they shown Adam dying? I can't really remember.

imhotep:
Options for you:

1) Get bogged down with infinite regress - of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin of the origin etc --phew

2) Conclude that there is no God and face the big bang story. Even though you must battle with events that led to the big bang in the first place --- which begins to look like infinite regress again

3) Accept that there is God who is being, and have peace of mind.

Um, no. For the first, one needn't get bogged down by an infinite regression. As I stated in my earlier post, one can face specifics of separate origins, even if there were a suggestion of infinite regression. One needn't attend to the question of the origins of humans, the Earth, solar system, etc, to discus the origins of the English language . There's no need to erect strawmen to avoid a specific.

For the second, no, not necessary an infinite regress. However, even if there is one, the earlier point still applies.

For the third, "gods of the gaps" isn't a prequisite for peace of mind.

Your trichotomy is a false one

RedHotChic:
What proof do you have that the story was fabricated? What if some atheist claim that the resurrection of Christ was a mere fabrication 2000 years ago?

wait, it wasn't?

simmy:
a singularity as i understand it in simplistic terms is absolute symmetry, which is identical with nothingness, what is nothing? nothing is nothing because for something to be nothing it has to be contrasted with nothing, however when you have absloute symettry, everything becomes everything which makes everything nothing.hope that made sense

No. In any case, uniformity would probably constitute just one property of the singularity.

thats why entropy increases in the universe as differentiation grows (or more matter) is being created (not necessarily by a creator).
by extrapolation if entropy begins to decrease it reaches a stage where everything becomes symetrical (undistinguishable) and that is what is referred to as a singularity, which is just a euphemism (or more accurately a big word scientists use to confuse us) for NOTHING!

So gravitational singularities are nothing? News to me. To be clear, this is the first time I'm coming across your definition of singularity.

if u really think of it from a philosophical point of view nothing really cannot exist,

Why not? I think it possible to postulate nothing from a philosophical point of view.

imhotep:
The next logical question will be the origin of God's origin,
And the origin of the origin of God's origin,
And the origin of the origin of the origin of God's origin,
And so on ---

Even if the case is an infinite regress, you can still, rather than erecting strawmen, answer the initial question.

imhotep:
How many atheists have resurrected?

From what I've heard, many. Just the other day I saw Douglas Adams strolling down the street, as large as life and without a care in the world. He was still as genial as before his death. Good guy.

st_nonymus:
Can any truth be more unbelievable than Jesus' Resurrection.Yet it is true.

Why is it true?

Like the Psalmist said," I do not concern myself with matters too wonderful for me".

I concern myself with matters that may be considered too wonderful.

imhotep:
Once again, NO ATHEIST has been able to disprove the existence of God/gods.

which is why I know that when die I'm going to Valhalla. Praise Odin!