₦airaland Forum

Martian: Tell me how to find out and I will.

I'm just trying to point out the absurdity. Cos if there is a cause for existence, then there would be a point where there is no existence but cause which is not existing!

^^ it is more or less an interaction.

Uyi Iredia: Of course ! There can be a very small box which is enclosed by a bigger box.



You forget that causality itself doesn't physically exist. That's why there are forms of it. In the absence of the universe causality would exist because it is an intangible concept, not a physical object.

It does exist as a physical principle and a concept.

Martian: There is no contradiction in demanding a cause for all existence. If the cause exists, we dont know, yet. No need to say, "if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause" because nature doesn't have to jibe with your bias.

the primordial cause of all existence is existing, right?

^^^

First time I'm agreeing with Uyi. Nothingness is the simplest substance apart from reality, its simply void and lacks anything. Its easier to believe it existed prior to everything. However the presence of something negates nothing.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Kay17, I follow your logic, within the limits of time there cannot be a "before time". But if we say that time and space has an origin, then there must be a cause for time and space to exist. remember that time is a dimension like space as measured by light (reference einstein's theory of relativity). hence it is possible to have properties beyond this dimension. I dare say it is only for the sake of simplicity of language that we say "before time".
Time here is not necessarily a sequence but a dimension
However that's by the way.
I would still like you to state where you stand, does the universe have an origin? was the universe caused?[/quote]Is it possible for there to be a bigger box within a smaller box?

If causality explainable or workable within the confines of the universe as a principle, would it make any sense to apply it in the absence of the universe?

logicboy: Huh? When did I say that science is a political movement?

Your first step is a fallacy. There is no uncaused cause because;

-The existence of the universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause

This compelling logic!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]If he said that everything can't be caused then that would mean that some things are caused and others aren't hence there would be no need to argue if God exists or not because I claim God is uncaused and you can't possibly ask me to give reasons for God. This will also imply that scientific reasoning is flawed since science is about finding the cause of everything that is observed. In fact saying the universe can't be caused is as much a faith claim as any. Just for the record he made "if and may" statements to which I had to ask him to take a stand so I know which way to argue[/quote]Standing on a premise that everything has a cause and yet making a conclusion that your god is uncaused is invalid! It can't stand. If you find the premise absurd, because of an uncaused god, then dismiss it.

I'm not aware of any scientific foundational assumption that everything has a cause!

Italo doesn't understand how subjective emotions are. The same proof for gods for someone is the same proof for no gods.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]@Cyrexx, thanks for responding but then from your answer, you have not as yet taken a stance so it makes it difficult to debate. For the purpose of simplicity I have decided to go back to the very beginning of my argument: without assuming anything i.e. whether God exists or not (I assure you there will be plenty of time to debate that as we move along)

For now, all we have before us is a universe, how did it come to be? Was it caused or not? I say it must have been caused. If you agree we move on to step 2, if not, you will be saying that it came from nothing (you will then have to explain how something comes from nothing). If you say we don't know and we cannot know then there really isn't any basis to having a debate and you cannot possibly say with any certainty that anything exists or not.

All that aside, where do you stand exactly? Was the universe caused? Does it have a definite origin?[/quote]Don't you read what ppl post?!

He just said everything can't be caused, consequently what determines an effect and how the universe fits such a test becomes the next question!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]To make it a lot less complex, I will break down my argument into progressive steps so that so that it is easy to follow and make for clearer refutation, we shall start on a clean slate and only treat one step at a time before moving on to the next. If you are willing, I would rather we argued for truth and not for bragging rights. Remember the reason for "God" in the first place arises from the question "Why am I here i.e. what is the purpose for existence?"

Anyway, all that aside here is Step 1

From what we know, every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Do you agree with this statement? If yes we continue to Step 2. If no please tell us why you disagree and what you consider an alternate more accurate statement. (please limit your response to the statement for now abeg!)[/quote]The Causal relationship can only function within a framework such as the universe with the texture of time. So if time began with the universe, how CAN there be a "before". Just consider it

A question that appeared in my mind was: is God dependent on our belief in his existence and our praises?

That's what you get for ignoring stakeholders. Every Akokite has an interest in the name/goodwill of the school.

We can look at it this way: spirituality and science offer two different/separate perceptions on reality.

Hlsbud and mr anony gods are examples of impossibilities! One can't expect contradictions or supernatural to exist! Its tooo simple.

I don tire o!

@lv

Just stick your faith.

Ok, GEJ messed up in the area of consultation and due process. However if we believe our heroes are worthy the prestige of our universities and cities, so be it.

However, I believe MKO is not the ideal icon of democracy. His association with the corrupt military elite, his fortune and fame were built from corruption. And in these times that is definitely not a model.

Besides the legitimacy of the election was still in the hands of the military and his resistance was common drunken power struggles seen all over Africa.

@Lv

Yes, you have a God which is your intellectual property and resides solely in your mind. The Unreal world you purport exists, where impossibilities become the opposite of themselves. As you said, "you don't need explanations" because God can only exist in an atmosphere of ignorance.

Pls in a general forum, don't bring/present your biased unjustified beliefs here as truth, it would get scrutinized!

It depends on what miracles are seen as either impossibilities or rare odds.

^^^

Hehehehe!!

Ok, not all theists are apprehensive towards evolution or scientific findings. But note I emphasized on religion.

Deep Sight: As I hinted prior, evolution has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

No, it has. Theism commonly expressed as religion; is not just a ritual but also a source of knowledge, its worth and validity are therefrom.

Atheists tend to accept more natural explanation. So a controversial subject like evolution is the difference btw both.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The point isn't necessarily the about exact nature of the big bang - I am not so much concerned about whether the theory of the big bang is accurate or not. What I am concerned about is whether the universe began at all or is it infinite. Since the universe has a beginning, then it must have been caused by something otherwise we would be saying that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.
Now whatever caused the universe to come into existence must in itself be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. This means that it is either this cause is an abstract concept such as shape, colors and numbers or it is a personal (by personal, I don't mean human) mind. Since we know that abstract concepts cannot cause anything into being, we are left with an intelligent personal mind or being. For this reason it is not necessary for God to create the substance of the universe from pre-existing physical substances.
For instance assuming we design and program a virtual world software, giving it specific laws and leave it to run on the intelligence of some super-computer. The characters in this virtual world would not be able to explain the physical world because it is alien to their world and the rules may be wildly different, however this does not mean that they cannot be affected by the computer hardware running their world or that the computer does not exist.(this analogy is putting it as best as I can in human terms and doesn't necessarily exactly describe accurately the nature of first cause).[/quote]I doubt if you read my post.
[quote author=mr _anony]My point still remains that no one can say that there is no God with any certainty or at least make any meaningful argument as to why God must not exist. At best what the atheist does is to wait for a "God statement" and try to falsify it. this does not prove his stance to be right in any way whatsoever[/quote]God is first a formless/shapeless idea, until whoever who introduces it, describes and defines what it is, it still remains an unknown idea/formless one. You can't ask me to search for what I have no idea of.

[quote author=emöfine2]We are all atheists or we all have a measure of scepticism?

***

In truth prayer has several functions but the main function of prayer is communication with one’s god. How the believer chooses to exact this communication or whatever subject the believer chooses to address is entirely up to them but of course the manner of the prayer is influenced by their mood and circumstance.
Some prayers are that of thanksgiving some are requests and some even serve to vent out feelings and frustrations – perhaps then it can be considered therapeutic for some.
I think it’s also to maintain a sense of connection with one’s god (or who one believes to be god). Without believers praying to their god they thus sever that link (and their god’s existence in their lives) so prayer is an important medium in maintaining the believer’s relationship with their god.

Personally I regard prayers as voiced out emotions/feelings directed at the authority that governs ones beliefs. Admittedly I deem the theatrical kind of prayers as mere drama but there are some who are sincere and moderate in their manner.

***

@OP Hmm interesting write up although I don’t regard all the observations that were made but I can understand what informed them.

Faith exhibited in a collective as opposed individually is an attempt to render the beliefs of a particular system more realness. It’s as if one of the aims in acquiring a significant number of "followers" for a belief system is to be accorded more legitimacy as do witnesses provide. More people declaring that a particular account is true will make others begin to consider the possibility of that actual account being true. However the problem with this is that if the stories from these “witnesses” differ and even contradict each other then people will of course question the validity and authenticity of this supposed “one” and “true” account. But of course there are some witnesses that rehearse their stories till it’s perfectly in tune with each other.


So I think it is religion and not faith that is a “coerced attempt to outwardly accept myths that do not resonate within an individual's inner mind or soul”. The number in these collectives are perhaps supposed to pose as a surety encouraging others to have faith in that particular deity as the more witnesses there is the more it may serve to validate a particular account. Faith was always meant to be an individual matter, religion just tries to have a monopoly on other individual’s faith under the guise of like mindedness, belief in the same god etc...but having a belief in the same god does not mean that faith will or should be identical or a group effort.
But the thing with maintaining a collective is that if one falls those adjacent are likely to be affected as well. Being in a collective allows for a hierarchy and thus inequality and even dependency. I suspect that people who are more susceptible to insecurity, gullibility, complacency and doubt may need an adhesive and support network i.e. religion to enable them to continue to peddle their supposed individual “faith”. If one begins to doubt then their “brothers in faith” will be there to dispel those feelings and
mollycoddle them back into 100% believing.[/quote]Nice write up. The psychology of spiritual attentiveness

mr anony: Mr_Anony: I will use this as an all-in-one response of sorts.

My reasons for God

1. What is commonly referred to as first cause i.e. assuming we were to take the scientific view that there was a big slam billions of years ago and that the cosmos came from this mighty explosion; If this big slam were to be the starting point of all existence, time/space and everything physical as we know it, we would essentially be saying that everything started from nothing. Now this statement creates some problems because by saying that everything started from nothing we are essentially saying that the universe came into existence with no cause whatsoever. To solve this problem, we have to acknowledge a first causeless cause and we will have to admit that this first cause has to be extraphysical(i.e. transcendent of the physical realm and hence not subject to the constraints of space and time and since this first cause isn't subject to the physical, it is very difficult to explain using physical terms) else we get caught up in the circle of what caused the first cause and the one before and the one before that and so on. Also when we look at the amount of order and precision in the universe, it rules out the likelihood of a random first cause but rather suggests a an intelligent and personal one who knows what it is doing i.e. an intelligent designer who is much more intelligent and powerful than the universe and immensely so much more beyond what we can explain.
My point here is that it is overwhelmingly much more likely that the universe was created than it randomly came into existence hence a creator. God.

You have made lots of mistakes here, first the big bang theory postulates an expansion, not explosion from a singularity which in effect is not nothing but everything. All energy and matter are accountable to it. Therefore the big bang doesn't violate any logic.

The uncaused cause thought doesn't pay attention to the designs and complexity of the uncaused cause and actually violates its own premise that everything needs a cause. The hopelessness of infinite regress is buttresses it.

Logicboy has already discussed God of Gaps, so I wouldn't touch on that. However IF the Creator is not physcial and transcendental, then he can't be the cause of a physical world! Where would the physical substance of the universe have come from?!

Taking that time came with the big bang, speaking about a "before" or cause of singularity will be nonsensical wouldn't it? Can there be a prior moment without time?

I wonder what use intelligence would have in a platform of emptiness. No rules/principles or laws.

[quote author=mr_anony]2. You cannot possibly have objective morality without admitting to the existence of God. one may say that morality is subjective or is defined by self and the society and the "social contract" but then there are things that are wrong in themselves and we all know this and we just cannot justify them e.g. murder, Molestation etc at the other end of the spectrum are things that are right in themselves and we cannot fault them such as forgiveness, self-sacrifice etc. This makes it very difficult to claim subjective morality. A person may say "I define my own morals" to which I would ask who is to say that you are right? If I was a serial killer or serial Molester, I could define my morals as "Molestation and murder are good things" would I be morally right? Also what if I said "society will be my judge" then I would ask what if the society you live in is racist e.g nazi and apartheid societies of the past, does that justify racism?
For ones morality to be valid, there is need for a judge who is impartial and who is omnipresent and omniscient so as to see from all possible angles of every case as well as powerful enough to deliver fair judgement. This is where conscience comes in, this is why we feel guilty in ourselves when we have done wrong even though no one else is witness, we even feel guilty for evil thoughts when we obviously have not physically offended anyone. It is our conscience - which I would say is a much higher law than man's attempt at legality - that really makes us morally right, not necessarily empathy. Also without this supernatural judge, why conscience?
My point is that the presence of this unwritten law (conscience) in ourselves strongly suggests the presence of a judge, hence God.[/quote]Morality is a cultural reflection of Good for society's benefit. Morality is not perfect, but just useful. Morality is universal where there is a society, but contents is subjective. All the societies in the world don't share the same moral contents. Murder is sparingly used within the society as a punishment, but encouraged against other communities (war)

If there is objective Good, there would be objective Good with its unique character. If Rape is bad and God rapes, then God is bad (objective good). So it the acts that have the inherent value not the "moral" agent or else no sense will be made.

[quote author=mr_anony]3. At this point I will talk about Christianity; A man was born roughly two millennia ago who claimed to be the son of God, he did many miracles including healings and exorcisms in his authority. He was crucified and buried and after three days, he rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb and was seen by many eyewitnesses including skeptics and unbelievers. This was widely preached by Christ's disciples within days after his death and resurrection. I am yet to come across any substantial counter-claim during that period considering that it would be fresh in their minds at the time and easy to disprove. The disciples of Christ were even willing to die for this truth every one of them. One can die for the lies of another (especially if he believes it the truth) but it is highly unlikely for one to die for a lie he made up himself. Not one single apostle denied the death and resurrection of Christ even to the point of torture and death, this suggests that they must have believed it to be true. The strongest evidence for christianity is the resurrection of Christ. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ and faith in Christ is justified because He claimed to be the Son of God and proved it by rising from the dead. The meaning of the word "christian" is "like Christ" so essentially if one does not accept Christ and walk in his path, such a person is not a christian. It doesn't matter if the person goes to a church or not. I have not yet seen anyone morally criticize Christ's character successfully. No one can morally fault the principles of christianity in all sincerity.
Jesus Christ is perfect and I put my faith in Him[/quote]The story of Jesus is a classical religious thesis which holds worth with the help of faith. But to a reasonable man, stories of actual death and then resurrection; actual impossibilities (miracles); ascending into the sky; do not repel reasonable doubt. These are violations of logic and commonsense. These stories go beyond the ordinary. It shares as much resemblance with religious fervour and attitudes shown around the world.

The book of Mark upon surface view can reasonably be taken to be religious fiction.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Up until now, no one has given me a reason why God cannot possibly exist. why then do atheists deny the existence of God by saying that God does not exist? I still submit that the basic premise of atheism is false. It is not a lack of belief rather a purposeful choice to reject God's existence hence atheism is a faith of sorts or better still an anti-faith and it is not necessarily based on logic and reason in the true sense of those words.[/quote]As to my previous post, I meant that Good is separable from God, that even God if he is good is bound by the standards of Good.

The Christian God especially can't exist because of the presence of evil/imperfection. Taken that God is all Good and perfect and he created all, thus All reflects his nature.

makdastar: all Nigerian atheists are atheists either cuz their parents are religious fanatics who never let them experience GOD by themselves, or people who have at one time or the other asked God for something and had their request denied, so they are still whinning about it. :Pall Nigerian atheists are atheists either cuz their parents are religious fanatics who never let them experience GOD by themselves, or people who have at one time or the other asked God for something and had their request denied, so they are still whinning about it.

Yea, fanaticism makes religion unattractive. For those that are disappointed with God, the belief of the being is still present in their minds so can't be an atheist per se.

I owe my disbelief to my natural doubts. Also I wasn't ready to place faith over reason. And I came to understand that all religions are at least a form of ancient philosophy which could be said have outlived their purpose.

^^ I'm still on joshua mistaken belief that the Sun moved around the earth.

And Genesis didn't state in clear terms.

LOL! David is a case

The OP is confusing God's wishes with Good. Pls they separate and not the same.

No, in relation to the earth, that its movement regulates day and night.