₦airaland Forum

Because your god doesn't have an email address nor a phone contact. On the incredible note, he's not on facebook, twitter and my ever-loving nairaland. I contacted my associate in the FBI, and she said your god's name was not found on their data base. It beats me hard why some cretins still believe in ghost-like-fairy-tales!

Maleeq: @booqee and @sally_bonne
Any attempt to bypass the word censor is AGAINST forum rules and will warrant a ban!
den den den...you r in trouble!

*runs off to tell uncle Seun & aunty Mukina!

amebo! Mafilomidasi! Soboyoke! Gboromideleru! Anofia! Ewu!

"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart"(gen 6:6). Soon, all theists shall also repent and grieve for their multitudinous ignorance, as did their emotionally short-sighted god-my-foot!

The birds are humming. . .the tranquil flow of the night. The sky is yet in its boring mood. . .transfixed as ever. The creator is no where to be sought. The world is seated on NOTHING! The whole race of men wallow in their ragged wisdom. . .the wise lack all conviction; the fools are full of passionate intensity. The things we see are what we see. . .we can't but talk and go to sleep. . .And after a damn long day, I go to rest. . .a place where the head must lie. I'm with you. . .always.

Kay 17: God's personality is diverse with multiple layers, an undeniable complexity. An array of attributes and also a more powerful being than his creation.

Kay 17: God's personality is diverse with multiple layers, an undeniable complexity. An array of attributes and also a more powerful being than his creation.

Kay 17: God's personality is diverse with multiple layers, an undeniable complexity. An array of attributes and also a more powerful being than his creation.

this is one of the problems of reason. You're defining(God) already, what needs to be defined.

[quote author= jayriginal]For the sake of argument, if we assume that the premise that nothing comes from nothing is true, does that refute god's existence ?

On one side, it is argued that
1)Nothing comes from nothing.
2)We know there is something (we exist for example).
3)That means there has always been something (because if there was a time when there was nothing, then something would never have emerged).

The issue is what that something is, and how it can be if we accept the first premise.
This is a problem cos we need to know where that something comes from since it cannot come from nothing (remember, we are all accepting this premise for arguments sake).

The theist/deist proponents call that something "God", which ordinarily should not exist since it cannot come from nothing and if it came from something, it cannot be god (also we must necessarily keep going backwards to investigate the origin of something).

To resolve this problem, god is allowed to be self existent/not needing a beginning or creation or cause. The opposition shouts foul. This is ad hoc reasoning and is only employed to save the theory that something cannot emerge from nothing. One might as well say of a blind person, "Mr X sees very well except when he doesnt".

There is nothing preventing anyone from resolving this problem in any other way such as saying nothing comes from nothing except the first time it happened. In other words, we make a general rule and save it from its fallibility by creating an excuse.

Now it is one thing to accept the first premise for arguments sake and its quite another to argue that something can come from nothing. It was caezar who acknowledged that the first premise is difficult at best to prove/disprove (which made me think there was hope for him), and this is quite true.

So far, I believe everyone has accepted (for the sake of argument) that nothing comes from nothing. God which is something, cannot exist since it cannot come from nothing (some solve this by bestowing self existence on god). But wait, says Caezar, it also invalidates our existence since we cannot come from nothing and we clearly exist, so in the long run, there must have been something. In other words, if there was nothing, there would always have been nothing since (for the sake of argument) nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, there was something and that something did not come from nothing, rather it was always there. So what was that something ?

Deep Sight : The oneness of infinity. An immutable, self existing, immaterial intelligence.
Plaetton: Pure energy which only changed form, birthing the Universe as we know it and which is indestructable.

Wahala !!

If we follow the trail to the end and if we accept the conclusion then that some self existing thing/concept existed then we are left with the problem of WHAT? And how can the "what" be verified?

Why is there a need to assign qualities of intelligence and consciousness to this god (this after "saving" it from the brink of non existence by an ad hoc postulation)?

Interesting question. If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that the Universe did have a cause, however, that cause was mechanical or physical in nature, perhaps pure energy; in short, the cause was devoid of intelligence and consciousness. would you call it god ? (A hypothetical question but should bring up interesting responses).




Bear in mind that the foregoing argument is hardly relevant to reality. Whatever is, is. No matter how much we want something to be, it wont if it isnt. No matter how "logical" our arguments are, it has no bearing on reality. If we could learn things just by "thinking" about them, we would have no electron microscopes, no Large Halidron Coliders, no sensitive telescopes etc.
We could all just sit down and come with what works best for us and leave it at that. Nature in no way has to pander to our notions.[/quote]you've said it all bro. Beautiful! In fact i envy your analyses. I'm only cheated, owing to my paucity of scientific knowledge. But all the same, my position is quite understandable for the open-minded and less-arrogant arguers. Whatever this presumed first cause is, if ever there is, there is absolutely nothing concrete to suggest that it is God. Anything, in whatever substance, form or colour, that is ultra vires of REALITY: conception, inception, and invention, cannot be attributable to SOMETHING. The paradoxical technicality of this statement is that while such thing could manifest sentiently and intelligently, it maintains its neutral anonymity of nothingness and absent-minded of reality. Take it or leave it!

Antivirus92: Imam-skilled lier, mosque-skilled terrorists headquarter, koran-skilled bomb manual

let them catch you. . .i no dey dere o!

labaks: LordBabs,hehehehehahahhabwhahah.

I reserve my comment...

see teeth! Lol!

I've read all comments and accompanied with a pitiable laughter at most. It's unfortunate there isn't a luxury of time on my end to reply all, due to some pressing matters. There have been bulky insertions, assertions, assumptions, conjectures, fallacies and fantasies. Forgive me if i can't respond to all. First, on the issue of eternity, it falls under the category of fantasy and fallacy(red herring-deviation)...how far can you prove there is eternity? What is the concern of this thread with eternity stuff? Back on the status quo, the proponents of 'self-existence' have only succeeded in demonstrating their clownish feats, because their arguments are verily contradictory to the underlying maxim, serving as the basis of this argument. The only stronghold of these theistic stance rests on the so-called 'self-existence'; that is their only straw. A Self-existent entity is not within the province of reality. Far be it! We talk of energy, we talk of reality, we talk of photosynthesis, that is real; we talk of causality, that in itself is reality. What the h'ell is infinity?! And what the f**k is self-existence?! Are these 2 part of reality? NO! Can they be empirically proven? NO! The truth is that, you don't create what has no beginning and call it a creation/creator/something: it is overly precipitous, fictitious and dubious. Again, EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT (OUT OF NOTHING COMES NOTHING) is a saying, which if applied correctly, means for something to exist, there must be something. Which instantly translates that if God is to be regarded as 'something', then 'it' must have come from 'something'. This is a primary school logic! Lol! I don't understand how it is hard to understand. The major problem of theistic advocates is their obsession with INORDINATE INQUISITION. . .a deliberate, misguided and subconscious foray into the realm of infinity, in which they themselves don't officially subscribe to. Trying to reason outside the box is an untenable fallacy indeed. Nontheless, I'm sincerely impressed by the intelligent and unintelligent responses of everyone(including myself). I'll try and find more time to descend wonderfully to this arena sooner. Thanks.

Purist: Lol. This reminds me of a movie I saw some 3 years back: God on Trial; and another shitty one I saw recently: Suing The Devil.


@OP: You may want to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God

Good luck!

thanks for that piece. My client will be immensely indebted. Btw, I've also seen that 'Suing The Devil'. The plaintiff was so stupid for suing the wrong person. The court was also biased, as well as the story writer. However the underlying intent is understandable, because it's meant to favour the christendom community. Cheers buddy! Fiat justitia ruat coelum!

Ok

wiegraf: Oops, never mind. It was a joke.. But if the turtle were falling, and we were moving along with it, so long as speed were constant we would not be able to to tell the diffrence. If we were under it and it were pushing (accelerating actually), the effect would be indistinguishable from that of gravity (gr= general relativity), or something like that. So we could still be on top of (or under) a giant turtle moving through space. Who would have thunk!

now i've got to believe u're referring 2 d Hindu stuff. You know the drift, don't u? Based on your assumption, it'll still lead to an infinite regress. . .
Ques: what is the turtle resting on?
Ans: turtle.
Ques: what is the turtle resting on?
Ans: turtle
on and on and on ad infinitum. Unless you'll want to prove that some 'unexplainable' gravity force is aiding the last of the turtles. But then you'll still be faced with questions like: why does the same gravity not work for the elephant or the earth itself. And these you'll have to prove substantively, lest the agnosticists(especially) strangle uuu.

joe4christ: Atleast i'm way better than that shallow twisted mind of yours.
Dumb A$$!!!

o.k. I heard you. You can now return to your sunday school. . .

wiegraf: ^^^^^
What a silly argument, we both know it's turtles all the way down. This argument also ignores the fact that if were uniformly falling through infinity, we wouldn't be able to tell ( actually that is similar to what is actually happening and gravity in gr, can anyone explain gr in plain english?). How's that sir?!

please, can you be more coherent? I don't seem to understand the propeller of your question.

They couldn't help it.
http://www.punchng.com/news/sss-accused-me-of-partisanship-bakare

jayriginal: Which is why we assert that something (all inclusive) cannot come from nothing and then save our god from this limitation by excluding it.

FRAUD IN ITS ENTIRETY!

jayriginal: I wonder why they spend so much time and money studying and documenting these things and then presenting their findings for scrutiny. Surely its better and more accurate to sit outside, look to the heavens and intuit the mysteries of nature. Of course certain "herbs" would enhance this intuition, particularly when such herbs are set on fire

This really got me laugh
ing. . .i recommend that to Deep sight especially.

Akpos: tell me about the earth.
Hindu: the earth rested on an elephant and the elephant rested on a tortoise.
Akpos: so, what is the tortoise resting on?
Hindu: suppose we change the subject.


Deep sight: God exists.
I've known this since i was 12.
Akpos: really? Who is God?
Deep sight: something.
Akpos: who are his parents?
Deep sight: nothing!
Akpos: chow! can nothing give birth to something?
Deep sight: your questions are too much, have you taken your bath?

joe4christ: [size=15pt]And that's why he's God!!![/size]

who is this one? This arena is strictly for adults, please. Return to your sunday school. Oya! Afira!

The only reason Gej is still alive is because I want to take him alive. Any moment from now, the die will be cast! Réré á sì rún!

jayriginal: What a bore.


There is no basis for saying "god did not begin" other than a need to escape from clumsy dogma.



And so to solve the problem of infinite regression; I present to you, the oneness of infinity. An infinitely self-existing, questionably "immutable" non material thingy.

What a load of rubbish. Believe what you want to believe but while you are at it, stop labouring under the illusion that you are making any amount of sense.



And they will do so not through science but by employing fallacious arguments and spurious reasoning. Not so, eh Mr "Deep Sight"

i'm telling you, the guy is so dogmatic that he couldn't even pick the fragments of the argument. As the yoruba adage goes: eni ti ko doko baba elomiran ri, a se pe oko baba re lo ju.

I admit i'm not a fan of mathematics, but at least i'm not as vapid to not give a simple mathematical illustration of my argument. Here is it:
1. Let 0 stands for 'nothing'.
2. Let 1 stands for 'something'.
3. Hence, 0 + 0 = 0(i.e.nothing and nothing = nothing).
0 - 0 = 0(i.e. nothing without nothing is still nothing)...Ex nihilo nihil fit.
4. Hence, 1 + 1 = 2(i.e. something and something is two somethings).
1 - 1 = 0(something without something is nothing).
5. Hence, if God(something) exists without something else, it is NO-THING!

Deep Sight: I was going to respond to this but i honestly can't. It's just plain gibberish. The bolded is just ridiculous. I'M not sure I can sensibly interact with you.

The first fallacy you pandered to is that of Slippery slope, by disembarking from the progression of my arguments, tagging it 'gibberish'. I forgive your ignorance. The second fallacy you're guilty of is called 'petitio principii'(begging the question), by engaging in a circular argument, when you used what requires proof itself to prove your argument. I can't but tell you that the foundation of your whole argument is faulty. Using the phantom called self-existence to prove the status quo, is like recoursing to the bible to prove the existential puzzles. You don't create an imagined phenomenon and call it a supportive determiner of real events; it is fallacious and fraudulent. It's like saying, all certain humans will die..,and later say that the parents of those humans cannot die: are the parents not humans? Undoubtedly, we all know that this presumed self-existent entity is also a part and under the governing rules of existentiality. So, why do you now prematurely and illogically obviated this force from the rule of causality. Hence, i'll appeal to you to stop derailing the thread with your potpourri of fallacies. Stop behaving you know what you don't know at all. Answer the numerous logical questions from my previous posts! Does God have an origin? Does he have a creator? Does he have a beginning? If the answers to these questions is NO!then you'll be unlearned to continue saying this your God is SOMETHING. Because, whatever you call 'something' must have a beginning, an origin, and a cause! Prove me wrong dude!

Murphy7h4: I like this.https://www.50centloseweight.com/jhkh.gif

thanks jare!

toygod2: wots KPEKUS? no b fish net be dat?

don't you have a local dictionary?

plaetton: Since muslims are over-protective of their wives and daughters, I have always wanted to ask a muslim the question of who's daughters are those 72 virgins of which all the jihadist dream of having a heavenly or.gy with, and ofcourse whether they would willingly contribute their own daughter to fullfill the heavenly fantasies of their fellow muslim brothers..

gbam!

Bro Pee: Dont worry, you wont go there if you dont want.

i dey craze?

cyrexx: LOL, i feel you,

why not try Islamic paradise, i hear say them go dash you 72 sexy beautiful virgins to rock throughout eternity. it will be less boring than christian paradise. though i cant guarantee they will give you champions league, chess etc. but for heavenly sex, islamic heaven will give you more than you will ever need.

whao! I dey feel you my guy. BTW, I was thinking there is 1 heaven(for both xtians & muslims), i never knew there were 2 heavens o! But really i think dat islamic 'paradise' will do it. Imagine me revelling amidst 77 succulent virgins. . .gbogbo aye. . .I'M READY TO BOMB FOR ALLAH. . .Allahu akbar!

Deep Sight: I think you have to sit down and actually study the concepts at play here. So far it's obvious you have no grasp of them.

A little understanding is very dangerous you know.

I think you are the one losing grasp of the fulcrum of this argument. The problem you're having is this stereotyped scientific hogwash you're enmeshed. My advice: You'd better start thinking in the direction of others, if you want to be near the truth. I'm going to reiterate my position on the status quo. Ex nihilo nihil fit refutes the existence of God, as long as you admit that this 'God' is SOMETHING. On the other hand, we may assume that ex nihilo nihil fit is metaphoric to mean that whatever exists now is nothing because it was conceived by a partial no-thing, which perhaps might eventually lead to nothingness(perhaps an allusion to the End of World, when the universe and its particles will melt into sublime nothingness). And which if another eternal world emerges, it MUST be borne out of a substantive source that can be called SOMETHING: and this would ultimately invalidate ex nihilo nihil fit. But a healthy argument cannot be premised on such hunches or some 'outsourced' prophecies. Hence, based on the available evidence I have here, ex nihilo nihil fit validly refutes the existence of God, except we can admit that this God is NOTHING, which in turn still invalidates the existence of God! Am I screeching?

redcliff: The hell u talking of (of there is too), u think ul c all dese too?

not all but some. E.g partying jamboree is constant 'k' in hell!

That's why I don't want to go to heaven, if there ever is. Imagine no S3x, no poker, no chess, no gambling, i won't watch John Cena & other wrestling champions, no champions league, uefa, no partying, except singing and praising God all day long? What the f**k! I'd rather die in the hottest part of hell than die in heavenly boredom!

musKeeto: Lol...

may be na atheist like Logic boy NJV go still marry. We never can tell what the future holds.