₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
It is very true that we are terribly handicapped in this matter and that, by the way, is why it is good to be agnostic generally, as stated by the OP, Politeactivist. It is also wise and signals the right humility which we should have in light of our smallness in the vastness of the cosmos.

However the question of inferring that a self existent element must exist for anything to exist at all is a matter of pure deductive and inductive logic. It is not the sort of thing for which some sort of physical evidence can or should be produced.

I want to know why you think it must be the case. Show me how you eliminate every other possibility to land on this one.

DeepSight:
Lordreed -

Permit me to add that some people have put it this way - when we look at the premises we have built up and agreed upon, we are left with either a self existent universe or a self existent God. I think we have agreed that the universe and the matter / and energy at its root are not self existent and this leads us to a self existent God, however one may then wish to describe it.

Banish any conception of an anthropological God in conceptualizing this. We are talking simply about a primordial root source and force.

As you'd see from my response already I disagree that these are the only possibilities. We are so very thoroughly handicapped in exploring this matter since the events are both beyond our current level of ingenuity and the gulf of time that separates us. How can you bring any certainty to this without a solid evidentiary backing?

DeepSight:
Good. So you see, the question then remains - what was the nature of that which preceded and triggered it?

Perhaps I should pause a little here to point out why, at all events, since things exist, then something or the other must be self-existent and thus be eternal in the past.

You see, we agreed that something cannot come from nothing. We also agreed that nothingness does not exist. This leaves us only with the existence of "somethings." Now for "somethings" to exist, the only logical possibility is that there is a "something" or there are some somethings which existed by default - i.e: existing was their default state - they were necessary as opposed to contingent things and thus always existed - they were self existential. This is absolutely the only scenario in which anything exists at all, otherwise there would be nothing in existence whatsoever.

The challenge therefore is to identify what those self existential things are. Two of those things are infinite time and infinite space - and these are to be distinguished from the limited and finite time and space we talk about as arising from the big bang - and which are physical or attached to the physical. Infinite time could not but exist, and the same goes for infinite space because in the default state of reality there can exist no boundaries. These two self existential elements form[i] the root of potentialities[/i] which is immaterial, and which for me is the fundamental core of the invisible source of all reality - which is what is called God.

My puzzlement is why you are so quick to land on this as the explanation. How have you eliminated every other possibility given that we'd not know what this thing even is? Why do you think that this thing we do not know itself is not the outcome of a whole different process we have no conception of? Why is it not possible it was some sort of universe building machine that expends itself in creating a universe? Or even just magic. You insist this is the logical conclusion but you seem to skip all these possibilities to land on this one without showing why.

petra1:
I asked a question

I asked you a question first.

petra1:
It was a vaccine why did many that had it still contact the virus ? Why was it banned ?

Stop deflecting and tell us the changes in the DNA I should expect.

Lutherblaq:
Today Is Valentine!! What a special and memorable day for lovers and friends, a day filled with joy and laughter.

So What Will You Surprise Your Partner With Today??

Happy Valentine Day

❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️❣️

I am surprising her with a heart shaped cake in her two favorite flavours, strawberry and coconut with spring rolls, samosa and puff puff. I hope she eats them and knows how much she means to me.

petra1:
Reactions differ in people and timing differs.

What did they put in your body? Was it a vaccine ?

Oga tell me what changes are going to happen to my DNA. Whenever it comes to facts you start dancing reggae. LoLz.

Yes it was a vaccine.

petra1:
The question didn’t make sense . It’s just sentiment . I could have answered but its not connected . Anybody can call anybody devil as he chose to believe but science is not based of belief and feeling . Its based on facts .

What was injected into your body was not a vaccine . It makes your DNA editable . Even many that supported it before have their eyes opened now to the deception. Dr faucci has been proven to be a liar and deceiver

Facts that you refused to show me.

Just as anybody can call any other person devil is the same way anybody can claim BS about vaccines. You are the one being sentimental since you believe BS that has no evidence.

It's been 2 years since I was vaccinated, you are yet to tell me what changes I am supposed to see in my DNA. LoLz.

DeepSight:
This energy you speak of is of a physical nature, no? And it is mutable. To that extent, it is not eternal in the past - i.e: it could not have always existed. Do you see this - if you do not, I will offer an expatiation of that point.

Sure, I agree it was not eternal in the past.

LoveLeadsLand:
Beware!!! He could use this illegal violation of his privacy to get back at you. He is a lawyer, not yet indicted by a court of law. And, there's no extant law against an adult keeping such media.

Do you know what you are saying? You think it is lawful for a school official to extort sex from a student, record and store the video of the sex act?

petra1:
Science is based on formulars and facts not sentiments . Why not be objective enough just in case we are right

Bwahahahahaha! You see you can't answer that question sincerely because you know it is bullshìt! You are asking to believe someone that has not worked at the company for years and has no knowledge of how this specific vaccine was made. If you would never dare say we should be the pastor in my hypothetical then you are a big hypocrite for asking me to believe such a person. LoLz.

DeepSight:
Clearly we have to take a step back. I can see now the problem with my not having explained why the universe cannot be eternal in the past, relying on the fact that you concurred that it had a beginning. That was a problem. Because there is a factor in there that we do not necessarily agree on, but glossed over. Here it is.

Matter cannot be eternal in the past because it is mutable. A thing that changes form cannot be eternal in the past.

Now, this is a statement that a lot of people seem to struggle with whereas some immediately grasp. I would ask that you take a few minutes to dwell carefully on it, and see if you find agreement with it before we proceed. If you don't, I will attempt an explanation.

I can readily agree since at the moment of inception of this universe there was only energy and matter came latter.

DeepSight:
You don't seem to be following your own statements and the necessary inferences or deductions they imply.

You can't say that all existing matter comes from previously existing matter/ energy and then turn around, when told that this implies previously existing matter / energy outside or aside from the universe, to say oooops, this is an unknown.

If you wished to hold it to be unknown then you should not have posited that all matter comes from previously existing matter/ energy.

Let me clarify. First we don't know what the thing that preceded the universe was. We don't know if it was matter or energy or magic. Then after the universe began we have no way to investigate beyond it so that too is closed off to us. It is only within this universe do see that matter comes from other matter or energy so if any inference was to be made it would be whatever preceded this universe was some form of matter or energy. I won't make such an inference though since it is an unknown.

DeepSight:
Well in that case you necessarily conclude that there exists physical matter / energy outside of or aside from this universe.

Yes?

That is an unknown. All we know at the moment is our universe. So no I can't make such a conclusion.

DeepSight:
It's not an assumption but a logical inference.

If physical matter had a beginning and came from something else, that other thing could not logically be physical matter.

We have never seen any physical matter that didn't come from another physical matter or energy so I disagree that this is a logical inference. I see nothing upon which to make such an inference.

DeepSight:
Excellent. So what remains is to see to what extent we can logically deduce what that previously existing thing is.

Now there is a simple way I have oft phrased this (and it is not unique to me, nor did I originate this reasoning). Here goes:

That if the universe consists of physical things then that pre existing thing could not be physical. It would have to be non physical. That if the universe is bound in time then that pre existing thing would have to be timeless. That if the universe is bound in space, then that pre existing thing would have to be spaceless. The rationale for all this being that the pre existing thing could not have the same attributes as the universe which it caused: otherwise we are no longer speaking of a universe which had a beginning.

And this leads us to discern initial qualities of that pre existing thing as something immaterial beyond time and space.

Any worries so far?

I disagree. That we don't know what preceded the universe doesn't give us leeway to assume that it was immaterial.

KnownUnknown:
Lol, imbecil3

A very insufferable one.

DeepSight:
This suffices for the purpose of our discussion.



In truth though, you are showing a needless fear of clear concepts and clear words, almost as though you are frightened of being trapped by self evident logic. A thing which has always existed is eternal in the past - no mystery there, contrary to the way one clown tried to scoff at the phrase yesterday. If something has always existed, it is eternal in the past, simple. A thing that will always exist in the future is eternal in the future.

So let us proceed. Of the two options - either that the universe has always existed or that it had a beginning, we are clearly going with the latter. I appreciate this otherwise I may have had to labor to explain why it could not be that the universe is eternal in the past. Now, since we agree that the universe had a beginning, and we also agree that it could not come from nothing - as nothingness does not exist, then we per force also agree that it came from a previously existing thing.

All good so far?

There is no fear. I try to make sure I am clear in what I am saying.

Yes I agree that the universe had a beginning, it could not come from nothing - as nothingness does not exist. I also agree that it came from a previously existing thing.

DeepSight:
For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to stick with the common scientific understanding of time as we know it, to wit: a dimension of motion. Because if we were to venture outside that, what a terrible flux we will find ourselves in.

Now it is interesting that I referred to the universe but your qualifications are about time. No matter, no pun intended. Let us just get the logic clear -

1. We both agree that something cannot come from nothing - it being the case that nothingness does not exist

2. Therefore if a thing exists, given that it could not have come from nothing, then it either -

. . . (a) Came from something already pre existing or

. . . (b) Is eternal in the past (i.e: it always existed) - as a necessary element. I trust you understand what "necessary" as opposed to "contingent" means in philosophy.

I guess my gripe is with the use of eternal. I can agree that whatever preceded the universe existed as a necessary element. Eternal and its association with time is at conflict with what we understand of the conditions preceding the birth of our universe as we know it.

DeepSight:
Thank you.

Step two. The universe being "something" therefore, we can further surmise that either -

1. It is eternal in the past

Or

2. It had a beginning.

Fair enough so far?

Permit me to qualify my answer.

1. Time was not eternal in the past, therefore whatever existed before time began cannot be measured by time.

2. The universe as we know it now began as time began.

KnownUnknown:
You shouldn’t have. What the hell is “nothing”?

To talk about the world, existence, the universe, or whatever else we call it is to talk about something. There is no such thing as “no thing”.
The next step would be for Deepsight to cite the Big Bang or some other “beginning” and say that “ some thing”is responsible for it and that thing is “eternal” or “infinite” whatever else. Fact of the matter is that the concept of god is nonsense and no amount of rhetorical masturbation is going to detract from that.

The nonsense called god is wholly dependent on the vocabulary of the person presenting the idea and the credulity of the other person.

At the end of the day, it will still boil down to absolute rubbish. Gods can do all things except speak or show themselves. Even a baby can babble, a kid can bleat, a kitten can meow but a god is utterly incapable of saying a mumbling word.

That's why I agreed, there wasn't a nothing.

DeepSight:
Ok, let us start filling the box in a few short logical steps.

Step one, do you agree that something cannot come from nothing?

Yes I agree.

DeepSight:
No matter what you say, that is what is reasonably deduced from your statement that the very concept of God is nonsensical.

And Jeez, deduction aside, you did say so. As well as saying that one may discuss it, so long as one so acknowledges it as nonsensical.

So how am I putting words in your mouth. I am quoting you.

Nope that is not a reasonable deduction at all. In my illustration I clearly stated that the question should be filled with substance not imagination and that filling it with imagination renders it nonsensical. We've been here before and I told you I am not opposed to discussing imagination as long as we know we are merely speculating. What part of what I wrote is difficult to understand that you need to keep misrepresenting it?

DeepSight:
Your position is still rather escapist. Because it seeks to cast the matter of the existence of God as too nonsensical to be discussed (or say that if discussing it, we must acknowledge it as nonsensical). The laws of causality alone, (whether anyone disputes them with voodoo quantum physics or not) are sufficient to render the question a sane, meaningful and sensible matter to address.

Once again you are trying to put words in my mouth I never said. Why create strawmen of my words when what I said is clearly written?

bemeruca:
Aren't they?
Take Ukraine for example. USA is not in Europe but they are spending more for a country that got into trouble aligning itself with EU

Ukraine is not a NATO nation so the US involvement in Ukraine is not the US playing big brother in NATO. Granted it is playing big brother in Ukraine though.

DeepSight:
Here -



Now I know very well that you will say you said nonsensical concepts can be used in discussion so long as we acknowledge them as nonsensical. The problem is that the concept of a creator is not by itself nonsensical. Many ideas attached to it by religion may be nonsensical but the bare concept of the existence of a creator is by no means nonsensical.

Now, again, this is not to say a creator exists, even if I personally believe so. It is simply to say that on the face of it, looking at the nature of the world, the concept of a creator is not nonsensical, much less so nonsensical as to be thus meaningless in the way you have alleged.



I understand it perfectly and I repeat that it was created by and is discussed by idiots.

Glad you realize I am addressing the concepts not the question. If after asking the question you begin to form an image or concept with no clear evidence why such a concept should be plausible then it is mere fantasy. Think of the question like an empty box, we fill it with substance to answer the question. If we attempt to fill the box with imagination while claiming we have substance then we have just done nonsense. That is where the concepts of gods are, filling the question of a creator with nonsense.

Your opinion on the nature of those who discuss FSM doesn't take away from what it is.

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*
Nope. Just won't let you get away with saying that a clearly pejorative, aggressive, rhetorical question was an earnest attempt to elicit information!
Really ridiculous!😅

Dumdum you've showed your hand already.

DeepSight:
This is ridiculous. It is not nonsensical to ask the question as to if a creator exists.

FSM on the hand is a mockery created and discussed by idiots.

You are the one being ridiculous. Where did I say the question was nonsensical?

FSM is the concept of gods taken to its fully absurdity meant to highlight the nonsensical nature of the entire concept. It's funny you can't even see that.

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*
Old age is not a bad thing. In fact almost we all wish to live to a ripe old. Only that in your case it could be affecting your memory and cognition. So I hereby repost the convo. Note the part circled in green. That's the question you are insisting is an earnest request for info!

At this point it's clear you are merely grandstanding with nonsense.

nairalanda1:


On the one hand it is a crass comment

On the other hand, a subtle reminder to Europe that the USA cannot play big brother defender to them all the time

How do you reckon US is playing big brother in NATO?

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*
Well, sir, unless you invent your own language, we have norms. You don't get to make your own rules as it suites your current debate. If you ask someone Einstein's religion, then retort with "why should we care." right after they answer you, it means BOTH your questions were aggressive rhetoric questions!

Dumdum how is a question asking for clarification rhetorical? More you just reciting by rote. Engage your flagging brain cells for once.

DeepSight:
This, again, is a vague response. I specifically said, the word "God as used in these discussions."

It is evident to any serious discussant in the atheism/ theism debate that the issue at play is simply that of a pre existing creator or designer.

Any discussant who claims not to know this is being either escapist, tiresomely pedantic or intellectually dishonest.

I am not saying I don't know how it is used, I am saying the entire concept is nonsensical. You can use nonsensical concepts in discussion, example FSM. I am not opposed to that along as we acknowledge what it is.