₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: But it could not logically be otherwise.

Matter must be shown to be an effect of God and also share in totality the character of God. Otherwise, the entire premise of God being immaterial and unchangeable, has to be reconsidered.

On your eternity question: can the Beginning have a Cause? Yes, because it is a reference and qualification of Time. We are compelled by Reason to seek for a Cause of time or else face an absurdity of infinity.

Deep Sight: Oh LAWD.

There is neither oxymoron nor cop out. Settle down and listen:

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. As such, the somethings that exist came from something already existing.

4. Since things exist, then there was always a something because if there was nothing, there would always have remained nothing and never any something.

5. Thus, something eternal and permanent exists.

6. Anything which is eternal and permanent is self-existent.

7. Self existent things are not mutable by reason of their self-existent and permanent nature.

8. Matter is mutable and changeable and therefore not self existent.

9. Ergo, matter is not that which is the permanent self-existent something.

10. Ergo, that which precedes all things is a permanent, self-existent, non material essence.

11. This is what is referred to as God.

No cop out, no paradox, simple and clear philosophical logic.

Change is believed by many wise men *smile* as the only permanent object. Understanding that the First Cause gives off a potential the Universe and its constituent matter, then one must acknowledge that the First Cause itself changed/transformed/altered state to form the Universe. The universe is not a separate entity but should be at least a part of the First Cause.

Therefore concluding that due to the alterable state of Matter and energy, both can't be the first cause is faulty. Also, to suggest the immaterial gives off the material, knowing both entities radically diFferent and considering that both don't share the same substance is to seek for a Miracle.

Causality is quality dependent on existence. Therefore its not applied indiscriminately.

To prove the existence of God, one must prove his existence is necessary.

wiegraf: Do they always release energy? The way I understand it, they usually cancel out. The little bit of matter that is excess is what makes up most of the observable universe, yes? No one really knows what dark matter/energy is, but is it related to antimatter?

These are all technicalities anyways. Bottom line is "nothing" in this universe is not really "nothing". Before big bang, nobody knows. I suppose if you tele-jazzed yourself to a place where big bangs spacetime expansion has not reached you may find true nothing, or do you create spacetime by simply being there? Pointless question, I know

There alawys has to be a potential to release a tremendous world, the problem with the arena of nothing is that it is a total lack/absence of thing, even potential.

Joagbaje: study the account of creation in the Bible

*dusting off my Bible* Surprisingly, the biblical account presumes the existence of material prior to the actualization of God's mind.

wiegraf: I didn't say there was no cause. I suggested casuality may not have to work intuitively under certain conditions. Any physicists here? There is no time for massless particles, they could travel across the galaxy wearing a magical watch and not a second would have passed to them locally, yes? So, even if casuality is ppossible under such conditions, why do you expect it to work intuitvely. There's some theist online who points out supposing some item had existed forever and said item causes a permament effect, that effect too must have existed forever too. There you go, casuality with a twist.(and I personally can't really see anything that could have existed forever, concepts like numbers I agree with, nothing else has been around forever imo, except if the concept of numbers has some physical effect then...)

And I don't think the nothing theory is nonsense. Matter comes into existense and annihilates itself all the time, even in 'nothing'. One of these collisons resulted in the big bang, or at least that is one of the viable theories. Then again, there might be diffrent 'nothing'. Again, physicists?

Was all the stu.pid, daf.t part necessary? Meh

Matter and antimatter collide and release energy

Enigma: ^^^ Please look it up (e.g. on google) and, I assure you, you will see how it relates to the point being made in the post immediately preceding mine about the arguments earlier on the thread.

Best wishes.

That is still lost to universal causation.

Deep Sight: Exactly. Which is why God exists.



It does not refute the existence of a supreme deity. On the contrary, it affirms it.



For any thing to exist, something or the other must be self existent. As such, that which is self existent must be the cause of that which is not.



Please if you want to strictly theological and philosophical discussion on the existence of God, then leave religious notions out of the discussion.

Everything is self existent in essence.

. . .

^^
The source of morality is the society.

Its moot to discuss a correlation btw atheism and immorality.

The unsatisfactory consequences of violence and conflict from religions is not ONLY as result of misuse of power, rather sometimes fulfilment and obedience to religious doctrines.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Good to know.
Now let me ask you one thing: Do you have an understanding of the "philosophy" of Christian morality?
If yes what do you know it to be?[/quote]Yes I do

Why would it be a sin not to believe there is a God?? If he exists independently of one's thoughts?!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It is equally very difficult to attack theism on moral grounds, except if you attack theistic philosophies like Islam, Christianity, Hindu, Shamanism etc[/quote]Of course, which is why you never see me lump all theists into one basket.

Enigma: ^^^^ From http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm

The Crusades, the persistent religious intolerance and conflicts that unnecessarily plague is a consequence of the Fact that God doesn't make morality.

^^

Or hypocritical theists.

Its very difficult to attack atheism on moral grounds, except if you attack atheistic philosophies like Confucianism, Humanism, Communism, atheistic existentialism, antitheism etc.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The direct orders of Mao and Stalin to pillage and perpetuate genocides?!

The idea of a pure and true worldview cleansed from impurities like religious Faiths. Some atheists encourage active tolerance with other religions, while other atheists don't.

A person who feels inspired by Pol Pot could decide to kill some pagans and Christians.

............so what exactly is your point again?[/quote]You haven't STILL being able tie religious intolernace down as a necessary attribute of atheism.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Neither do religious wars prove that there is an intrinsic value in religions for the killing of people of other faiths

It just shows that some manipulative politicians would employ religion as a tool to control the masses.[/quote]The direct orders of Moses and Samuel to pillage and perpetuate genocides?!

The idea of a pure and true religion cleansed from impurities like other Faiths. Some religions like Buddhism encourage active tolerance with other religions, while Abrahamic religions don't.

A person who fills inspired by Joshua could decide to kill some pagans and atheists.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]really? wonderful!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#State_atheism_today[/quote]Informing.

BUT that still doesn't prove there is an intrinsic value in atheism for the destruction of religion or to qualify as an atheist one must hate religion.

You just showed a couple of atheists that badly hate religion and political ideologies to that effect.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Hmm, I dunno, How did religion cause the crusades?[/quote]A direct inspiratioN and expectation of rewards in the obedience of god's words.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Hmm let us see.............how about "religion is poison" by Mao Zedong and the subsequent persecution of Christians and Buddhists in China?[/quote]How did atheism cause that??

Unfortunately God is trapped in minds of his followers.

Dogmatism in what??

Societies that lacked Priest or Priestly influence tend to progress more and rapidly eg the Greek cities that sprung up the Philosophers.

At least the lack of religion removes the dogmatism. Which incidentally solves a lot of human problems.

Atheistic societies tend to be more peaceful, eg Atawurks ppl.

The Old Kingdoms used pyramids, afterwards the Valley of the Kings was used. Probably instability and scarcity of resources prevented them from the continued lavish expenditure on pyramids.

And probably shift in religious doctrines.

The Old Kingdoms used pyramids, afterwards the Valley of the Kings was used. Probably instability and scarcity of resources prevented them from the continued lavish expenditure on pyramids.

^^
Lol!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]There were huge changes yes. but not moral changes. The era of law gave way to the era of grace. Good and evil remained constant.[/quote]No. The laws reflected sins, like homosexuality, tattoos, eating of unclean animals, socialization with
Outsiders etc

If you read that passage in scripture, you'll find that God directly gave the verdict that the man be stoned to death as the people didn't know what to do with him (I hope I remember it correctly) Anyway, God being all good as well as creator, has the right to punish (he that hath no sin cast the first stone).
Now Jesus is Lord over the Sabbath but then again, I want you to notice something. The misconception I think you have is that Jesus "disregarded" Mosaic law because it was "cumbersome" but that is not the whole story. Jesus is Lord and has authority over Mosaic law, besides He even gave us even more "cumbersome" standards to meet such as "lust=adultery", "hatred=murder".
The difference between the OT and NT is simply God's grace.

You were touching on rights. Pls who defined and gave him such rights??

Who made "these sentient" beings? That's the question and not whether they are sentient or not.

A cow values it's life about as much as a human values his, yet most people have no moral problems killing it.

Because you have the gift of language that enables you describe your feelings better doesn't exempt you from punishment for sin against a much more superior creator. It even makes you more inexcusable because you can sin with the knowledge that you are actually sinning.

Sin being disobedient to God. If God instructs me to kill my father and I don't, I have sinned. Some noble deeds are Sins.

Sentient beings are conscious, thoughtful and non mechanical beings, they shouldn't be treated as property.

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]let me answer this. Yes Hinduism is one of the largest Pagan religions survivng today and more advance than the others due to expansion of different Indian Empires.

who told you about "twin killing" it was mostly said by european missionaries to defame us. amybe some cultures might have done some crude form, but it was usually just after birth, when the child is not yet completely developed and able to think for itself in a proper way. Even Animals, especiall Lions, leopards, etc., eat one of their kids after birth.
however it is not very justifiable and i very much doubt it even existed.

the blame of this is usually put on the Yoruba people. but what comes into light is that the Yorubas revere twins to such a large extent that they used to pamper them too much in the past. you must have also heard of the Ibeji twins. there is obviously some symbolic reason to it. and also Yoruabs have one of the highest twin expectancy in the world so killing is out of the question.



you want evidence use your sense man! the Traditionalists were the Ruling class before christianity. why would they call themselves as villagers?? in fact one of the reasons for the early persecution of christianity and them being fed to Lions was their threat to the Pagan Roman Chiefs and Generals and the Empire's stability, because the Jews were already creating much problem for them before that.
The area around israel was a very volatile and unstable region in the Empire (and still is), with frequent revolts. it is a cursed place.



The Indian caste system is similar to the French Caste system and the West African Caste System (sepecially in Mali).
The original purpose of the Indian Caste System was to establish a sytem in those days of lawlessness and uncivilization (note: im not saying uncivilization was bad because people were still happy and content). Anyways when the invading Aryan Tribes started setting up governments and civilization, they had to create jobs. so this was based on the capability (not race). However it so happens that the Arayans were mostly well-versed in theology, classical language (Sanskrit), etc., so naturally they mostly got the Priestly jobs and roles of teachers, etc. The invading Warrior class among the Arayns took on the role of Warriors, since they were accustomed to it. Many of the Aryans, along with many of the Indigenous Indian Tribes took on the 3rd role/job of farmers, cattle drivers, etc. The final role of/job of keeping streets clean, washing clothes and all other lower jobs was given to the unskilled & uneductaed Indigenous tribes who were incorporated into the civilization. Some Tribes were skilled in music and the arts so they were given a role. all of these were and still are "paid jobs" unlike white slavery.

Now it is to be noted, that many indigenous tribes refused to be incorporated into civilization and the caste system and to lead independant live in the forests. These are oday called the Adivasis literally meaning "half-citizens" or forest Tribes.
there was never any ratial issue. Infact some white skinned Indo Scythian Warrior Tribes who invaded later on after the Aryans, were refused to be accepted into the caste of Kshatriya(Warrior) or any caste for that matter. These are for example, todays such as The Nair and Bunt Tribes, the Jats, the Kodavas, etc. .though later on they started calling themselves as of being warrior caste-men due to their jobs as warriors in feudatories.

now this is about the early Vedic Age when untouchability never existed. However conditions worsened during the later Vedic Age as civilization expanded and there was some power-sharing between the 2 upper-castes of pries and warrior. The Priests were given excessive rights by the Rulers and this resulted in power abuse. yet slaver never existed.

It reached its most ugly form in the Medieval Period (1500 Ad to now). by this time it would have been wise to abolish the outdated system, but unfortuantely there were rarely any stable govts in the country which lasted for short periods and also the constant islamic invasions which destabilized the region.





now that is a very vague statement. what do you know about these objects. it is not like just waing up in the morning and performing a rain dance. there is ritual, mode and context. if you give me the exact detail of whicch religion and what practice, i will explain.

jesus did not show any love. what is your point? none of us has seen him. what love are you talking about. if my girlfriend shows me love, would i worship her the bible is a load of bs. i have read it. it is only a book of religious proselytisation, brainwashing, superiority of man, and cultural wipeout. and if there is any morals in there, it has all been plagarised.[/quote]BAD argument. Infanticide is a horrible thing, we can't change that. On Hinduism, Buddhism rose up because of the inherent injustice in the caste system. The use of gods was a mechanism for inequality and privilege.

DevotedOne: In The Name of Allah, The Eternal, The Almighty; Blessed Be HE Forevermore.

Allaah, is the Hidden, the Manifest. The High Exalted, The Righteous. HE, is the Giver of Life. You, I, had No, life before HE, Bestowed Life upon us. There is No, life apart from HIM. HE, has always existed! HE, cannot die. When all of life in the world vanishes, no thing will remain except Allaah, Alone! HE, Alone, can Create as many worlds, and as many forms of life, as will please HIM, Alone. HE, Alone, possesses All Knowledge. HE is the Self-Subsisting, in whom All subsist. HE, Alone, is the Source of Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the Protector, the Unconquerable. Know your LORD GOD!


Wassalaam. DevotedOne

"He always existed"?! Then he is inevitably bound by Time.

"He cannot DIE" can you really vouch for that, MORTAL one?!