₦airaland Forum

I am THE AWARENESS. The immortal me that is neither born nor ever dies.

What do you mean by the above statement?

I presume that "born" and "die" as you use them are not literal.

If you are really immortal then you are not physical or at least you have a non-physical side of you and thus you really are not an atheist (the kind that only believes what his 5 senses tell him or her)

Jenwitemi:
What raw materials does the christian, judaic and the islamic God(s) have? Why does the creator have to have some "raw materials" to be believed to be a God?
Well they certainly must have done exactly that at some point, or else we wouldn't all be here in the first place.
Atheists say it is the trinity of Mr. Big Bang, Mr. Chance and Mr. Randomness. Christians say it is the trinity of Mr. Jehovah, his holy spirit and his son. The jews say it is only Mr. Yahweh. The arabs think it is Mr. Allah. Since all these worshiped deities are also caused, who or what caused them into being? All these are just questions we wil never be able to answer in this reality. IMO.

Theists believe that the creator is not physical but of another dimension and therefore not bound by the physical law that dictates that all physical matter is created by something other than itself.

The only probable thing is that a non-physical phenomena caused or created the physical phenomena through some process which we cannot understand now.

Jenwitemi:
The atheists say that the cause is accidental, random. That is another big belief right there that needs a lot of faith. Chance and randomness are, therefore, their God(s) in which they believe. How about that. Everyone believes in something and that includes atheists.

Even if the cause is accidental or random it still needs raw materials because physical phenomena cannot just spontaneously materialize out of nothing. What created the raw materials?

Jenwitemi:
Okay. It is a case of majority wins the vote, right? I am not sure i can go with that. Anyway, this is something we will never know for sure, so what's the point of pursuing this line of discussion.

That's just a preliminary argument.
A way to verify the various worldviews is to draw out their logical conclusions and see which one most corresponds to present reality.

Of course it is a worldview. The denial of any existence other than the perceivable physical world is a worldview, most definitely. They believe only in what their 5 senses show them and nothing more. That is a BELIEF for you, right there.

Your 5 senses tell you (through science) that physical phenomena have to be created and that they do not materialize out of nothing. If you believe in what your 5 senses tell you then you most definitely have the huge question of what or who caused the universe to come into existence which brings us right back to the God question or at least the creator question.

Jenwitemi:
Why should a creator be an uncaused? Example, the creator of this universe could also be a caused cause. Who says that can't be the case?

Yes a creator could be caused, but then that means that creator would have a creator right. That could very well be the case.
However the arguments for an uncaused cause creating the universe as opposed to a caused cause seem to be greater considering all the various worldviews in existence.

Saying you need "absolute knowledge" to "logically be an atheist" is like saying you need absolute knowledge to "logically believe" a man has had sex with his wife, or to believe virtually anything else for that matter. . . Preposterous.

Look at your analogy well sir, what does a man having sex with his wife have to do with having a coherent worldview?

ritchboy:
I usually don't comment here but i find this quite preposterous:

How so? Using the definition you provided earlier, atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of God, not the belief in the FACT that God does not exist.

Saying you need "absolute knowledge" to "logically be an atheist" is like saying you need absolute knowledge to "logically believe" a man has had sex with his wife, or to believe virtually anything else for that matter. . . Preposterous.

I guess the DISBELIEF works fine as long as you don't try to defend atheism rationally. If it is to be defended rationally then the DISBELIEF must be backed up by some kind of BELIEF.

To be able to elevate atheism into a worldview then DISBELIEF is not enough . One has to believe in something to have a coherent worldview. That's the kind of atheism we are dealing with here.

I'm sorry to say, but your brand of atheism which includes only disbelief is not a worldview and we are discussing worldviews here.

Thanks for the comment anyway.

You see one does not need to become omniscient to come to the conclusion that there is no need to believe in your God.

However, you need to be omniscient to come to the conclusion theat there is NO GOD and that was what I was trying to point out.

Given the above and the fact that you do not have absolute knowledge then you cannot logically be an atheist.

thehomer:
Oh? Did time commence?

At the scale of the universe, one does not simply speak of time or length due to the large distances involved and gravity. Plus the absence of an absolute reference value due to the fact that the bodies in the universe are constantly in motion.

Time is of a dimension such that we cannot speak of a commencement of time.
A period can commence but time did not commence.
Time is simply a measure of the interval between 2 events.

At the scale of the universe we can speak of time. Indeed the interval (time) between the big bang and now is about 14 billion years. (This is time not space time)

thehomer:
But the universe is different in the sense that time as we know it and measure it is within the universe and not outside it. And we are yet to obtain information beyond this universe.

The fact that we can measure time within a frame of reference is precisely what should tell one that time itself is an absolute dimension that does not reference something else.

The dimensions of the universe are known so there is something like "outside our universe".
Richard Dawkins even posited the idea of multiverses and there have been multiple scientific propositions based on multiple universes.

The universe is finite and it is made up of physical matter. The physical matter in the universe must have been caused by something. Science points to a big bang but since the big bang is a physical phenomena it must have been caused by something else.

thehomer:
Why must there be an uncaused cause simply because you want to introduce your creator or you do not like an infinite regress?
Why do you think it must be non-physical?

You have to bend over backwards and break scientific laws to even argue that any physical body can spontaneously come into existence in a vacuum.
It is not scientifically tenable that there was always physical matter because physical matter cannot just exist without having been caused/created by another process - something outside of itself

This is precisely the reason why scientists don't argue with the concept of the uncaused cause.

thehomer:
Time as we use it currently use it commenced with the expansion of the universe. This is how I understand and apply time in my posts about cosmology.

There you've said it. To apply your answer to my question, it would be phrased thus. There is no time prior to space-time because space-time is the point of reference when we speak of time.

A big NO. Time as we know it did not commence with the expansion of the universe.
Spacetime is not time!
Time is not a spatial quantity. It is of a unique dimension.
Space-time is not the point of reference when we speak of time. Time is an absolute dimension like length unlike the example of north you mentioned earlier.

thehomer:
Does the fact that we can conceive of such an occurrence mean that it actually occurs?

The main point I'm trying to illustrate is that the fact that one can conceive of a phenomenon or an object does not mean it actually occurred or existed.

Yes you are right. The fact that we can conceive of the occurence of something may not actually mean that that thing occurs.

However, what we are talking about here is not the occurrence of a phenomena but the absence of a physical phenomena.
If we have observed the presence of a particular physical phenomena and we have isolated it as a phenomena then it can be absent.

If the absence was not possible, then we wouldn't have conceived of its presence in the first place.

Indeed, all physical phenomena occupy space and have an age.
If something has an age it means there was a time when it did not exist.

But exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books called the Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that they are impositions. The disordered state of the history in those four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the production of some unconnected individuals, many years after the things they pretend to relate, each of whom made his own legend; and not the writings of men living intimately together, as the men called the apostles are supposed to have done — in fine, that they have been manufactured, as the books of the Old Testament have been, by other persons than those whose names they bear.

From my previous post on thee way memory works, it is quite plausible that the apostles could have lived together and still produced markedly different accounts. At any rate they were not scribes detailing every last detail of Jesus' life therefore one or two of them could be silent on something the others reported.
One need not go too far to understand this if one looks at the case of say the various biographical accounts of Abraham Lincoln or J.F. Kenedy written by various people close to them.

@divinereal
I believe we have dealt with the perceived contradictions in the account of the genealogies of matthew and luke.

Another thing which I want to point out is that the new testament is made up of letters written by the apostles to some other people.
These apostles were not infallible therefore they may have not always been 100% right about every matter.
The most important thing is the logic or central theme that their letters seek to pass across.

The bible does not claim to be the spoken word of God in its entirety even though it contains some words that God spoke which is usually preceded by words like ". . .and God said. . ."

No historical event has ever been recorded flawlessly and most likely (except probably with high definition video) no event will ever be recorded flawlessly. However we cannot therefore say that all historical events are false because of inconsistencies of various sources.
Therefore quite contrary to thomas paine's argument, the fact that luke and matthew do not agree 100% does not mean that the story of Jesus is false.

It is not the existence, or non-existence, of the persons that I trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to be married, and while under this engagement she is, to speak plain language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious pretence (Luke, chap. i., ver. 35), that "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." Notwithstanding which, Joseph afterward marries her, cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn rivals the ghost. This is putting the story into intelligible language, and when told in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it.

Of course Thomas paine did not consider the possibility of in-vitro fertilization in which case there can be pregnancy without sex that's why he says "there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it".

Quote from: logic1 on December 30, 2010, 04:45 PM
Everything in the universe including the universe as a whole is referenced by space and time.
The universe has size (space) and has an age (time).

Yes. So what?

If the universe has an age then it has a beginning. If it has a beginning it was caused by something.

If the thing that caused the universe is physical then it too has a cause and we can go on and on.

Conclusion: At the very beginning of the process there has to be an uncaused cause in the equation which is most definitely non-physical

thehomer:
And what was the scientific cause for the universe?

No. The conclusion of the Big Bang was arrived at due to evidence showing the expansion of the universe and other theories such as Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

The scientific cause for the universe is the big bang.

The idea of the big bang was hypothesized because everyone implicitly believes that everything has a beginning.

thehomer:
This is interesting. What do you think atheism is?

One thing you need to understand is that agnosticism and atheism answer different questions. Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is a concept about the existence of Gods.

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God or deities
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Agnosticism is the view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

For anyone to credibly defend atheism he or she must possess absolute knowledge about the creation of the universe as a start.

thehomer:
The existence of which God? Your God? You need to realize that non-belief in your God can be arrived at using multiple means especially when one considers the contents of the book he was supposed to have written.

The existence of any God.
I made the comments that led to this particular discussion because you profess to be an atheist i.e. someone who does not believe in the existence of any God.

thehomer:
Can you explain what you mean by time here because time as I'm using is measurable. The Big Bang is not conscious so cannot create anything. Sure we can speak of before using language but does it actually mean anything?

And we define north as tending towards the north pole. So, where is north of the north pole?

Time is a measure of "when" something occured. It is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to measure the duration of events or the intervals between them. Time is measurable. I don't think I said otherwise.
Before means something, infact you posted the comment in quotes BEFORE I posted this one.

Please what are you trying to clarify with the north of the north pole question?
A possible answer to the question is that there is no north of the north pole because the north pole is itself the point of reference when we speak of north.

Does this actually mean that the converse must also exist? e.g we have the concept of numbers. Is it possible for this concept not to exist?

It means that there must exist the possibility of existence of the converse.

Numbers mean something because they explain something else.
The real concept behind numbers is about estimating the presence of something, we have 3 cars, 3 means nothing if it does not refer to any other thing. In fact when the brain thinks of the number 3 it actually thinks either of 3 objects or of an object whose shape resembles the shape given to the figure 3. 3 can only mean something if there is the possibility of the non existence of 3 which is the possibility that the 3 objects imagined do not exist or the object whose shape resembles the figure 3 does not exist.

Gravity is an explanation of the force of attraction between the earth and another physical body close to it.
There is the possibility that 2 bodies can repel (rather than attract) each other, the converse

That would be if we can also speak of causes when it comes to objects like the universe.

Science posits a beginning and a cause for the universe.
The reason why science makes the above propositions is because it is established fact that every physical substance has a beginning.

Everything in the universe including the universe as a whole is referenced by space and time.
The universe has size (space) and has an age (time).

We do know that physical parameters were involved in the process of expansion but again whether we can speak of causes is still debatable.

But I guess you already have your answers to all the questions which would be God, God, God.

Now we have some improvement.
If you do not know the answers to these things then you do not have enough information to disprove the existence of God.

I think the problem with Atheism is the brazenness which most atheists have in the face of ignorance.
A more scientific stance would be agnosticism rather than atheism.

That is if we can actually speak of a "before" the big bang.

We definitely can speak of a "before" the big bang as time is not a physical concept and it was not created by the big bang.
In fact we define when the big bang occured, approximately 14 billion years ago.

thehomer:
Why do you assume that the universe was ever at a state of "nothingness"?

All known physical particles have a beginning.

Your idea that the universe was never at a state of "nothingness" is not physically possible.

You cannot define something as concrete if there is no such thing as non-concrete.
You cannot have a concept without its converse.
There cannot be presence without the possibility of absence or else presence does not mean anything.

Just to clarify,
by space I mean spatial location.

By saying something existed in space, I mean it existed in a particular location (somewhere)

thehomer:
Huh? Space appeared during the expansion of the universe. Physical particles also came in after the universe had cooled enough for them to coalesce.

What I was trying to point out is that all the known physical particles cannot explain their existence without refering to something outside of themselves. The physical particles you talked about were coalesced from other particles. they didn't just spontaneously materialize from nothing

Therefore if anything could spontaneously materialize from nothing (where nothing means non-physical or not appreciable in the spectrum of the physical), it would have to be non-physical.

The questions you should try to answer are:
what existed before the big bang?
what caused the big bang?
Did the big bang result from physical particles or not?

I just thought to chip this in.

The big bang presupposes that there were physical particles that had always existed in space prior to the big bang itself.

The above statement does not ring true with reality as we have found out that physical realities however sectioned never explain their own existence, they have to go to something outside of themselves.

It is therefore a safe supposition to say that if there is anything that would explain its own existence it would have to be something that is non-physical.

toba:
in addition to the above, when pple suffer some forms of misfortunes, its also being attributed to non tithing at times. for eg, i was in a gathering when some suffered a loss and the Mog simply asked if the fellow is a tither, he said no. Mog simply adviced restitution. Well this chap came later to give testimony. I wouldnt want to say its a coincidence or simply an act of the tithe but a message could have been passed that tithing is more of a commandment. U obey u get the reward and vice versa. I once shared it here not long ago on a man that took a loan for a contract and first paid 10% of the loan as tithe. He was successful at the end and to date the ministry of________ stll calls him for major development. Hes success was an act of tithing or simply doing a good job? tell me what u think before i proceed
thanks

He probably would still have been successful if he didn't pay his tithes. Note that there are a lot of successful contractors in Nigeria who are not even believers. The major task is in getting the contract not in executing it. (You'll know if you've bidded for a government contract).

I think God would have preferred it if he didn't pay tithes but was ready to spend all he got from the contract to do what God wanted him to do.
Remember that Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give to the poor not just 10% (Luke 18:22)

toba:
Today u see top MOG here in Nigeria laying emphasis on tithing as a means to getting Gods blessings and also as a decree/commandment that should be obeyed. they arent seeing it as a principle, they also see it as a means of receiving from God i.e if u dont pay, God might not bless u like those that pays. Compare these with your own stance

If paying tithe is a principle, then it in all probability comes with its blessings which will not be enjoyed by those who don't practice it. I agree with this.

The difference in my opinion is that I do not think there is a judgement against the paying of tithe.

In the new testament (covenant), Our bodies are the temples of God and we are like priests (Remember we are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood. . .  1 Peter 2:9).
Priests did not pay tithes. Their entire life was given to God.
Therefore, in the same way, we should be totally sold out to God. Everything we own should belong to God (not just 10%)