₦airaland Forum

NJV: ^^^lol. Worry indeed! Goodluck on ur self-assigned senseless task.

Thanks dear. I shall convey your regard to my client.

wiegraf: Are you thinking of god as a personal god, or some sort of sentient being? If so, (textbook and ridiculously easy to predict) god of the gap much? Explain what this 'god' is, if you will

When we say 'God', some theists literally think we are talking of their so-called heavenly God. Whereas, what we meant by God is the 'First Cause'(if there is any CONCRETE first cause). But the idea that this First Cause can't be nothing based on ex nihilo nihil fit credo, practically defeats and gainsays the self-existence of that same First Cause, since it had earlier been premised that for something to exist, it must come from something. Now, to further adumbrate on the status quo, i'll give some helpful lexical deductions:
When we say a thing has no origin and creator, we mean that such thing is created and originated by NOTHING(i.e.a non-existent source). But, if a thing is said to be something(unspecified or unknown thing), then it must have an origin, which may though be unspecified; and a creator, which perhaps is unknown.
By the above, ipso facto, if this self-existent entity is something, then it must have an origin, otherwise it is nothing worth calling something. If it has an origin, it means it has a beginning and therefore is caused(by another thing).
Here is my theory: sometime you see a ray of the sunlight blurring your visual, your immediate response will be most likely thrown at the sun, and not the rays. But although the sun(which is farther from you) is a substantive matter(cause), the ray is nothing but mere an illumined effect of the sunlight. This shows that even a thing that is considered something might not be concretely something, but a mere nothing in disguise. After all, it is often said that there is 'sense' in 'nonsense' as there is 'problem' in 'no problem, just as there is 'thing' in 'nothing'. Theoretically, everything that exists is nothing. This is proven by the inevitability of death, which eventually swallows up existing things into nothingness. Plants die, properties die, organisms die, humans die. The whole of existence is but a make-belief something but absolutely nothing in disguise! I wish I could express my thoughts clearer than this.

caezar: Therefore, from the very beginning, .

caezar: Therefore, from the very beginning, .

caezar: Therefore, from the very beginning, .

very beginning? Does an independent entity have a beginning? If it has a beginning, then it can't be self-existent, because everything that has a beginning must have a cause! If it has no beginning, then what VERY BEGINNING are you hinging on?

Deep Sight: GBAM ! ! !

After the bolded in red, I doubt I ever need to make any further argument for the existence of God in my LIFE again!

stop doing follow follow, it will only consolidate your poverty of imagination. Think man! What you probably don't know is that even if you disprove that something can emerge from nothing, it will ultimately invalidate the existence of God, since it must also have emerged from something. And if you succeed in proving that something can come out of nothing, you'll also be faced with another difficulty of identifying that something void of causality, which renders weak the argument for the existence of your so-called self-existent God.

caezar: Therefore, something existed, prior to you, to have caused you. Nothing that existed prior to you could have existed from nothing. Therefore, from the very beginning, something must have always existed.

We shouldn't muddle up issues here. In a nutshell, based on the premise of your above rebuttal, you did conclude that it is impossible for something to emerge from nothing. If that is the case, then you must be contradicting yourself, by still saying, in your words 'Therefore, from the very beginning, something must have always existed.' In other words, by your above statement, you are equally saying ex nihilo nihil fit. And to now cap it up, you still say, that self-existent entity, which is something to you doesn't emerge from something, rather from nothing, which invariably disputes your first premise. How fraudulent! Verily verily I say unto you, except you put out that mathematical balderdash of Point '0', point this, point that, and face the logical reality of this phenomena, you may be just doddering & tottering abut ginormous untruth! Tell me again that it is worthy for a thing that lacks origin, creator beginning & destination, to be called something? You can't just infer that such thing can be ascertained by its effects, because what you called effect can turn out to be the cause. E.g.the sun could be the cause of all creation, as well as the jupiter or even the universe itself. That scientists have not proven so to your knowledge doesn't refute its possibility. Hence, you need to validly prove that it is impossible for something to come out of nothing, which will in turn validate ex nihilo nihil fit and which invariably question and invalidate the idea of a God, since that force is also within the ambit of existentiality.

NJV: If atheists do not believe in the existence of the Almighty God, then does it make sense to want to sue a being that doesn't exist??
The fact that u or ur friend is contemplating a law suit at all simply means u believe He exists and that makes me glad.

re-read the title of this post. Note that the suit is based on the assumption that there is God and which if won against the defendant would forever ban your so-called god-damn religion. . .that should make you worry dear.

Delafruita: the charge sheet should include
-negligence
-encouraging delusion
-source of bickering
-reason for excessive murders,wars,calamity
-racism
-bigotry
-crimes against humanity
-war crimes
etc

lol! Expect a 5000-paragragh piece on that. Abi no be lawyers?

Some while ago, a friend, a staunch xtian(not a Nairalander) approached me for some legal advice on how to pursue a suit against God for creating the devil. Below is the encapsulation of his thoughts:
Some days ago, while walking down a street, he saw a goat. Wrapped around his neck was a small milo tin, cleverly hung, gagging its wide mouth. He asked why? And was told it is the only means of preventing the goat from eating, stealing and polluting people's food and other belongings. He laughed, and thought in himself, 'if only God had done the same to Lucifer, the world would be a better place for living.'

As an atheist myself and a legal adviser, I laughed hysterically(of course what else do you expect of an atheist) and offered the below arguments:
1. Why should you create something you cannot overly control?
2. Isn't it an outright foolery to invent something and claim that, that thing has an autonomy of choosing what it becomes(in reference to theists who claim God created Lucifer and not the devil; that it was Lucifer's choice to become so)? This logically self-indicts that God as not omni-potent at all. Or does a scientist invent an airplane and gives the object the choice of either flying or slouching on the ground? Isn't it expected of the inventor to fuel the plane and also aid its flight in order to consummate his works?
3. Why should there be evil in the first place? Are you sure that God isn't a schemer? Afterall the bible says he created evil(Isa 45:7). Infact, the whole thing appears to be a lineal ploy. Hence, if he created good & evil, then he must be the same being double-acting as God & Satan equally. Infact, he's a skilled actor.
4. 'And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart'(Gen 6:6): This unequivocally self-indicts this mischievous God as being far from omniscience. Is he so myopic, purblind or short-sighted not to have forseen this downfall of man? I think such an emotional being, that can even repent(meaning he is fallible) is unworthy to be called God! Far be it! What an unmerited arrogation of authority!
5. Or considering the gargantuan fallacies and discrepancies engulfed in the bible(especially), shall we then pass a vote of no confidence on the bible, as a yardstick of knowing God?
5. What is the legitimacy of this God? Why should it be the official duty of fellow mortals like ourselves to prove his existence? Inshort, what is the legitimacy of his advocates?
6. Isn't it wicked, arrogant and silly to say one cannot see God? Is it that he doesn't have the magical power to show himself or he's just too haughty? And don't I have the right to know the one whose will i'm subjected to?

Now, you can further enlighten my client on how to sue this unseen thing called God, that is if he seriously wants to do so or otherwise advise him anyway. Thanks.

caezar: I am glad you said this. I was all about wading into this debate this morning to show the necessity of self-existent entities when I saw your comments above.

Nonetheless, the above is not complete. You have come to the realisation that the infinite regress that results from seeking the cause of every effect can only be resolved if you start somewhere, say Point A (or as science likes to say Time t=0), and assume that it is not logically possible to recede beyond Point A or t=0. The problem is you have not come to the realisation that all that exists at Point A or t=0 must perforce be self-existent. This is the underlying premise on which ANY argument about the origin of the universe must be based in order to be coherent and cohesive.

Put in other words, you cannot make a coherent argument on the first premise that nothing existed in the beginning, and the second premise that nothing comes out of nothing. If nothing comes out of nothing and we start with nothing, then you cannot possibly make the argument as you could not possibly exist to make an argument as nothing would ever exist. But if you accept that nothing comes from nothing but something always existed then you could exist as offshoot of that something that always existed.

This, in and of itself, should give you a fair understanding of the problem of existence. I know of no other way to resolve the premise of Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit and the fact of my own existence. I challenge anyone out there to provide a better resolution.

I think we should look deeper. Even if i prima facie agree with you that there must be a grund norm existentiality(i.e.a self-existent force), we may have to differ, based on the logical surrounding of that self-existent entity. Why?
1. That entity was not created. In other words:
2. It has no origin. Meaning that:
3. It is strictly undefined, uncertain and unspecified .
By these, I can posit that although this grund norm assumes to be 'something' only hypothetically, the circumstances surrounding that 'force' doesn't provide a substantial evidence to disprove that it is practically 'nothing'. Because, come to think of it, how can a matter that lacks origin & source be claimed to be SOMETHING. I may think that self-existent thing exists only circumstantially and mere 'nothing' in disguise. And this is why to unravel the mystery surrounding the identity of this 'force' has everly been pragmatically difficult, even for its subscribers.

tchaik: SOMETHING SHAA EXISTS; CALL HIM ALLAH, GOD, YAHWEH, BUDHA, AMADIOHA, OLUWA, NATURE, DIVINE INTELLIGENCE, ULTIMATE BEING, COSMIC ETC (SORRY IF I FORGOT TO MENTION YOUR OWN)

I DON'T CARE D NOMENCLETURE ONE USES, SOMETHING IS THERE, IT WORKS, AND ITS REAL!

ND: FEEL FREE TO QUOTE ME

poverty of the mind. . .shio!

I too don't give a damn!

I hereby move a motion of vote-of-no-confidence on the nigerian god!

Reyginus: The 'nigerian god' is an illusion.It is a creation of ill-grounded religionists, with profound sympathy for wishful thinking.

A mirage in its exclusive making. . .an anecdote of perceptive blindness. . .and a resultant of the poverty of imagination!

This fat corpulent woman again?

fredoooooo: When worshipping the Nigerian god, be loud. No, the Nigerian god is not hard of hearing. It is just that he appreciates your loud fervour, like he appreciates loud raucous music. The Nigerian god doesn’t care if you have neighbours and neither should you. When you are worshipping in your house, make sure the neighbours can’t sleep. Use loud speakers even if you are only two in the building. Anyone who complains must be evil. God will judge such a person.

hahahahaha...the nigerian god must be having a serious ear problem, or may be the reception of the network is damn just too bad!

Does God exist?

Adagba1: take am easy o

don't mind her, she was trying 2 insert a needle in my already holed kpekus. . .arrant nansense!

babarazy: Re u sure abt dis?

are u doubting me?

Impressive contributions. Really enjoying this. Albeit I'm not of much a science pupil in school, but a simple logic could save the course. If we say some 'self-existent' matter exist before creation and out of nothingness, then we are saying something can emerge from nothing, which could as well be the universe or the so-called 'Big-bang'! or any other thing. In my opinion, the idea of a self-existent entity imagined by some philosophers is just borne out of the idleness of the mind to think further and further. Besides, by virtue of the principle of universal causation, it will still be asked: why is the creator(god) not caused? Can't we as well as put that the universe is not caused?

The question: Is there any scientific theory that explains how something(a matter) can be created from nothingness?

labaks: Sayin it publicly settles it....That's ur belief anyways but let me correct u ''U DON'T HAVE ANYTHING''

Believe in ur GOD, ur creator. Afterall, u didn't create yourself....

yeah, my parents created me by giving birth to me. . .are u satisfied now, madam God-my-a$$?!

denzel2009: The Alpha and Omega
The Ancient of Days
The Lion of Judah
The Fountain of living waters
The King of kings

He is also:

El Shaddai (Lord God Almighty)
El Elyon (The Most High God)
Adonai (Lord, Master)
Yahweh (Lord, Jehovah)
Jehovah Nissi (The Lord My Banner)
Jehovah-Raah (The Lord My Shepherd)
Jehovah Rapha (The Lord That Heals)
Jehovah Shammah (The Lord Is There)
Jehovah Tsidkenu (The Lord Our Righteousness)
Jehovah Mekoddishkem (The Lord Who Sanctifies You)

My Help from the ages past. Give Him all the Glory cos He is Awesome!

see folly!

Deep Sight: This topic and the claims of Krauss just remind me of some other such scientific quack, much idolized by atheist dolts, who even went so far as to prescribe the properties of "nothingness" and ascribe to it a certain size and even a mathematical ratio, or some other such nonsense.

These things are frankly illiterate.

stop pandering to more fallacies(red herring)! Ain't you better than this? The cardinal question remains unanswered! Your so-called 'self-existent' matter is assumed to be independent of itself, would you therefore conclude that a matter can emerge from sheer nothingness, thereby invalidating the dictum 'ex nihilo nihil fit'?

Deep Sight: Those ideas are indeed st.upid and d.aft, apologies to whoever holds such notions.

argumentum ad hominem! Desist!

Joagbaje: study the account of creation in the Bible

This isn't a church, where myths are served with unsavoury and sardonic tales-by-moonlight. Desist!

hakunajay: I beg to disagree with you on the fact that prayer is a skilled energy waster... God answers a modest prayer and its not a time wasting effort to talk to your maker... Unless, of course, you are an [H]atheist...

of course, i am.

labaks: Hakunajay, don't mind the poster; he no understand the value of prayer, that's why hin situation never change 4 d better.

i have everything i need, stop being prayerfully ludicrous!

You wretched gamophobe!

Senator David Mark makes an outright silly faux pas, by canvassing for a restraint on social media. This arrant wake-up-suddenly-go-mad-devil-may-care attitude of our democratic 'infidels' is not only a disproportional assault on the electorates, but also a conscious overture to gag the truth. Good governance is what the people want, and not an emotionless mumbo-jumbo of some ne'er-do-well govermental principals!

Whores......skilled sex-maker.
Politicians.....skilled money-eater.
Pastors......skilled story-teller.
Blackberry....skilled time-waster.
Nigeria.....skilled time-bomber.
Prayer.....skilled energy-waster.
Add yours...

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.

you still don't get it, do you? The existence of a supreme deity, otherwise called God, is known to be characterised by its ability of having not emerged from something, which is contrary to ex nihilo nihil fit. So, how does the expression affirms its existence?

Enigma: ^^^ Necessary being on the one hand and contingent being[i]s[/i] on the other.

meaning?