rich_john:

I dont undastand the level of intelorance been exhibited by these moronic christians why reporting to the moderator to ban someone expressing his opinion why is it that anything that touches their belief system should be scrapped ban or destroted na wah O Isn't Yahweh and jesus powerful enuf to fight for themselves I hiss in latin. That was how moderator debosky banned someone after a thread was raised to that effect. There's really fire on the mountain, yet these morons go about preaching love. love of jesus my foot!
Abeg Mudley fire on jare!

I could be wrong, but Rich John, were you not once a christian when you first joined this forum? Have you now become an atheist?

@Mudley313
Na woa so nairalanders are trying to get you banned? Anyway the site owner is an athiest too. {but thats no guarantee to stop you from being banned}

@Alexleo
Please come and defend your topic and tell me why am not blind?

@Pastor AIO
Just kind of curious which post of mine pointed to fact that am a christian perharps I made some christian-like comments that I can't remember! well I was once a xtian but I just moved from believing to reasoning, I'd just state here that am not an athiest am a Deist, scientologist kind of I just hate hypocrisy and deceit that litters christianity!

Mudley common now.

Let me make one thing clear - no one requested that you get banned. The complaints were about the pictures that you posted and I told you one or two were not in accordance, in spirit or in practice, with forum rules.

None one will complain if you air your views, just try to do so cordially and respectfully. And if you have any problems with any christian/muslim being insultive, simply bring it to Manmustwac or my attention. Thanks.

i doubt anyone would take offence at those lame jokes mudley posted.

it's only his fellow atheists who found them funny. Most other people didnt even bother responding, since they [the jokes] are so wack.

Mudley common now.

Let me make one thing clear - no one requested that you get banned. The complaints were about the pictures that you posted and I told you one or two were not in accordance, in spirit or in practice, with forum rules.

None one will complain if you air your views, just try to do so cordially and respectfully. And if you have any problems with any christian/muslim being insultive, simply bring it to Manmustwac or my attention. Thanks

ok oh. u never pointed out which 1 or 2 were not in accordance to the rules so that i'd be more sensitive to the feelings of em lily livered christians in case of next time; cos i still got a whole lot more in store to ditch out but im no longer sure which one will eventually incure the wrath of god, sorry mods

i started out in this forum as respectfully n cordial as i can be but its when i figured how especially so-called christians try to play the smart azz n employ the use of personal insults as defence for their incapacitated god its why i snapped n decided to return fire for fire since we dont got the means to literarily smack the sh.t outta these foul mouthed hypocrites in real life

i doubt anyone would take offence at those lame jokes mudley posted.

it's only his fellow atheists who found them funny. Most other people didnt even bother responding, since they're so whack.

they may be lame n unfunny to u, but painfully enough they're the reality of the delusion u guys be living in. n if those jokes n pics can be termed whack, what would u call all em gibberish u tried to pass off as jokes above? dog poo?

and by the way, back to topic, where's OP to come n give all of the countless generic excuses christians normally give when their god is exposed to be a totally inactive entity

[size=13pt]<sup>mmm. . . . . for where.

You can see now , how weak and wretched God the Christians and Religious folks are saving. oh i so much pity those fellow humans busy carrying their God like egg but only wasting dear precious time on an imaginary guy who happened not to exist to care for his duties as claimed written down in the bible and other Religion books.

This is another proof that GOD is EMPTY. . . .i mean , totally powerless and have no good thing to offer the world . he's only an imaginary sadist created by fellow men to deceive the world. . . . For sure , on this thread that Church freak clearly wrote my name with all boldness on this thread and other free thinkers having the feeling this can threaten our intelligence but it's been more than 3 DAYS now , and i can see my sight is still very clear and i haven't lost my sight as written by that so called Christian. . . . now , let's see how GOD can still have the liver to boast in our presence.</sup>[/size]

bawomolo:

anyone blind yet?

A religious belief is a SIGNPOST pointing to the Truth,
When you CLING to the signpost,
You are PREVENTED from seeing the Truth,
Because you THINK you have it already,
==================================================

NOTE: Atheism is a like a religion that "believes" in the non-existence of God. Atheism cannot disprove the existence of God

A religious belief is a SIGNPOST pointing to the Truth,
When you CLING to the signpost,
You are PREVENTED from seeing the Truth,
Because you THINK you have it already,
==================================================

NOTE: Atheism is a like a religion that "believes" in the non-existence of God. Atheism cannot disprove the existence of God

Did you see the cartoon posted above and how silly this your logic is. Incase you didn't, here's it again. Go through it as logically and rationally as your religious brain could take and then proceed to go take your meds

Mudley313:

Did you see the cartoon posted above and how silly this your logic is. Incase you didn't, here's it again. Go through it as logically and rationally as your religious brain could take and then proceed to go take your meds

The FACT still remains that no Atheist can PROVE [/b]that God does not [b]EXIST.

Ironically, then, atheism has something in common with theism: A CURIOUS INABILITY TO "PROVE". . .

Atheistic logic, in other words, looks very much like what you call Religious Logic . . .

imhotep:

The FACT still remains that no Atheist can PROVE [/b]that God does not [b]EXIST.

Ironically, then, atheism has something in common with theism: A CURIOUS INABILITY TO "PROVE". . .

Atheistic logic, in other words, looks very much like what you call Religious Logic . . .

You are getting it wrongly. NO theist has ever shown or provided any evidence to show that his or her god exist. The god hypothesis is just a claim that has NEVER been proven and a claim that has no evidence to support it at all. If there were no theist there will be no atheist, There was never a time before the god hypothesis was proposed that some one came forward and declared that there was no god, The no god assertion came only after the god assertion was made without any evidence. Atheist only said that there is no god based on the claims of the theist. My evidence to show that there is no god is that all gods and religions are man made  as as such no god can be shown to exist on its own independent of many made stories, man made culture, societal influence and cultural acceptance, If you know a god that exist on its own independent of all these things i have outlined then pls point to it. . . .

imhotep:

The FACT still remains that no Atheist can PROVE [/b]that God does not [b]EXIST.

Can you prove that the God that you worship, who you pray to, who you call your saviour, and give 10% of your income to exists outside your imagination? Don't you think that the onus is on you to prove what you believe since your the one who worships him?

mazaje:

You are getting it wrongly. NO theist has ever shown or provided any evidence to show that his or her god exist. The god hypothesis is just a claim that has NEVER been proven and a claim that has no evidence to support it at all. If there were no theist there will be no atheist, There was never a time before the god hypothesis was proposed that some one came forward and declared that there was no god, The no god assertion came only after the god assertion was made without any evidence. Atheist only said that there is no god based on the claims of the theist. My evidence to show that there is no god is that all gods and religions are man made  as as such no god can be shown to exist on its own independent of many made stories, man made culture, societal influence and cultural acceptance, If you know a god that exist on its own independent of all these things i have outlined then pls point to it. . . .

. . . we are all on the SAME page  here. . .

S/he who claims that God exists (or does not exist) automatically bears the burden of proof (or disproof).

It is not enough for atheists to verbally NEGATE the claims of theists. They must also appeal to our rational minds by  providing proofs. . .

I have decided to resurrect some of my old posts, and I continue to say ===>

=========================================================================
Atheism is a religion that believes in the non-existence of God.

Because atheists cannot disprove the existence of God, they have to rely on faith to believe His non-existence.

Faith, afterall, is the substance if things NOT SEEN.

Atheism is a belief-system that has the qualities of a religion.

imhotep:

Atheism is a religion that believes in the non-existence of God.

This is wholly false.

Religion centres around both belief and worship of supposedly transcendent entities or powers.

The atheist denies such, and does not engage in such.

Accordingly there is absolutely no rational basis for the claim that atheism is a religion.

Unless of course, the person making such a statement is oblivious of the definition of the word “religion”

Because atheists cannot disprove the existence of God, they have to rely on faith to believe His non-existence.

The atheist does not have an obligation to disprove the existence of God.

In the words of Betrand Russel – “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

This analogy simply is directed at showing up the flaw in insisting that the non-existence of something that has not been observed, or cannot be observed, must be proved by the skeptic. A grasp of the "absence of evidence" theorem will suggest that this is an absolute impossibility: and also an incongruity - the atheists will never attempt to prove the non-existence of God, as such can never be done, nor does it make sense to ask them to come up with the evidence for a negative assertion.

It's quite simply a contradiction in terms.

In this perhaps i am somewhat tainted by my legal background as the term "burden of proof" has a distinct legal connotation.

In a sentence, the principle states - "He who asserts must prove".

However it is worth noting that this refers to a positive assertion as opposed to a negative assertion. In other words if i were to make the positive statement: "Michael Jackson is standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest" - the burden of proving that would rest on me, and not on the person who makes the negative assertion - "Michael Jackson is not standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest."

It is for this reason that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who are making the positive statement - "He did it" and not with the defence who are making the negative statement - "He did not do it."

Faith, afterall, is the substance if things NOT SEEN.

Yes, which is why the religionist has faith.

God is NOT seen and the atheist claims that there is NO SUBSTANCE to belief in God, and as such it is illogical to attribute faith to the atheist – since he denies any such “substance.”

Atheism is a belief-system that has the qualities of a religion.

This is an absolute lie and I put you to the strictest proof thereof.

You make the horrid mistake that many have made – equating the existence of BELIEF to a religion.

I ask you – is a belief in Santa Claus a religion?

Is a belief that Mount Everest does not exist a religion?

Why then should a belief that an unobservable God does not exist, amount to a religion?

Your assertion is tragically mis-footed.

Deep Sight:

This is wholly false.

Religion centres around both belief and worship of supposedly transcendent entities or powers.

The atheist denies such, and does not engage in such.

. . . and CANNOT PROVE SUCH . . . this is the tragedy of the atheist's position . . .

Deep Sight:

Accordingly there is absolutely no rational basis for the claim that atheism is a religion.

Not a religion, but a BELIEF SYSTEM that has a lot in common with RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS

Deep Sight:

The atheist does not have an obligation to disprove the existence of God.
In the words of Betrand Russel – “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

This analogy simply is directed at showing up the flaw in insisting that the non-existence of something that has not been observed, or cannot be observed, must be proved by the skeptic. A grasp of the "absence of evidence" theorem will suggest that this is an absolute impossibility: and also an incongruity - the atheists will never attempt to prove the non-existence of God, as such can never be done, nor does it make sense to ask them to come up with the evidence for a negative assertion.

Oh yes, atheists MUST disprove the existence of God, if they are REALLY to be taken seriously.
This long grammar of Bertrand Russel, is NOT the disproof that I would like to see . . .

Deep Sight:

It's quite simply a contradiction in terms.

In this perhaps i am somewhat tainted by my legal background as the term "burden of proof" has a distinct legal connotation.

In a sentence, the principle states - "He who asserts must prove".

However it is worth noting that this refers to a positive assertion as opposed to a negative assertion. In other words if i were to make the positive statement: "Michael Jackson is standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest" - the burden of proving that would rest on me, and not on the person who makes the negative assertion - "Michael Jackson is not standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest."
It is for this reason that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who are making the positive statement - "He did it" and not with the defence who are making the negative statement - "He did not do it."

"God does not exist" is AN ASSERTION. . .he who asserts must prove.
Even though we are not in court. . .

Deep Sight:

God is NOT seen and the atheist claims that there is NO SUBSTANCE to belief in God, and as such it is illogical to attribute faith to the atheist – since he denies any such “substance.”*

The atheist BELIEVES IN A NEGATION. . . and so faith can and should be attributed to him/her.

Lamentably there is nothing within the post above substantive enough to merit a response.

You have not even scrtached the surface of the arguments i made: you have merely made vacant rebuttals.

This is at variance with the usual quality of your ripostes.

The FACT still remains that no Atheist can PROVE that God does not EXIST.

Ironically, then, atheism has something in common with theism: A CURIOUS INABILITY TO "PROVE". . .

Atheistic logic, in other words, looks very much like what you call Religious Logic . . .

seriously tho, are u mentally okay?

Deep Sight:

Lamentably there is nothing within the post above substantive enough to merit a response.

You have not even scrtached the surface of the arguments i made: you have merely made vacant rebuttals.

This is at variance with the usual quality of your ripostes.

Athiests SHOULD NOT RELY SOLELY on the [b]weaknesses [/b]present in the arguments of the Theists in order to prove their "case".

Atheists should come up with convincing, complete and un-impeachable arguments (or proofs etc) for "the non-existence of God".

Mudley313:

seriously tho, are u mentally okay?

Thanks for the compliments . . .LOL

imhotep:

Atheism cannot disprove the existence of God

Can the existence of anything really be disproved? In my opinion, giving the qualities of faith, no. The existence of the gods that have been claimed to exist can be falsified, but that hasn't stopped the adherents. Zeus is still lord of all, to some hellenists. And Asatru is still going strong.

The point being, I can present a logical argument to attempt to falsify the existence of your god. Hell, it may actually falsify your god. However, all points made will be ignored or handwaved away, and like the believer in gold buried under a rainbow, you'll keep arguing that nothing has shown you can possibly be wrong.

^^^ KAG - I positively assert that you cannot "falsify" the existence of GOD or gods, (in this i am at odds with your bizzarre choice of words).

You mad esuch a horrid statement sometime ago to the effect that the commencement of the universe equates 0 = 1.

That means that nothingness = something.

That is worse than magic.

If we accept that "something" cannot be produced by "nothing", then we necessarily accept that "something" (of whatever description) always existed, and "nothingness" perforce, and by its very description - does not exist.

What was that "something" that always existed? Aha.

^^^
It is impossible at this present moment to rely on a simple equation to explain how the universe came about when nobody yet knows exactly what the universe is. Until we understand what the universe is made of by detecting dark matter, dark energies, and dark flow we cannot possibly complete the equation. I think that these future discoveries along with the understanding of antimatter and gravity waves will help fill out your very simple equation into something more akin to a simultaneous or quadratic equation with much more exotic solutions.

For me though, the bible (or the quaran) cannot be the word of god unless that god is incredibly ignorant and dumb. I mean, if the bible is human kinds creation instruction manual from god like some christians believe, and jesus was sent to earth to spread the word, then why does it not contain a map of the world. It took christians 1700 years after jesus before they realised that America, Australia, and the pacific islands even existed. Why does the bible or quaran not contain any of this information if it was written by god? Did he not know either?

To me this shows that it was written by men with the limited knowledge and understanding of the bronze age.

Deep Sight:

^^^ KAG - I positively assert that you cannot "falsify" the existence of GOD or gods, (in this i am at odds with your bizzarre choice of words).

I disagree that I (and anyone in general) cannot falsify the existence of gods. For instance, one can begin to falsify the existence of a god whose major characteristic involves transporting, with a chariot, the sun from its depths when one discovers or points out how "sun rise" works.

What's bizzare about my choie of words?

You mad esuch a horrid statement sometime ago to the effect that the commencement of the universe equates 0 = 1.

That means that nothingness = something.

That is worse than magic.

Not quite. I'll quote verbatim what I wrote:

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.' [Emphasis not in original]

I hope you get the point now. If you don't I don't mind explaining further.

If we accept that "something" cannot be produced by "nothing", then we necessarily accept that "something" (of whatever description) always existed, and "nothingness" perforce, and by its very description - does not exist.

Not quite. The way you've phrased it is wrong. What is being discovered is that something can "pop into existence from nothing. For the past few years I've given a good example of that: virtual particles. Quantum physics has been showing that many of the things we, as intuitive humans, consider sacrosanct are in fact different from what was expected.

What was that "something" that always existed? Aha.

Nothing need be that.

KAG:

Nothing need be that.

. . . Thinking about nothing today . . .  I remembered something I read some years ago about prayer / meditation . Thought I might share =>

Martin_Israel:
In prayer a person gives of himself in humble adoration to God Who is beyond all names.

By becoming nothing - as Jesus was on the Cross - one attains communion with that which too is nothing and is also the eternal Godhead.

For God is assuredly No Thing, as the greatest mystics have taught the world.

KAG:

I disagree that I (and anyone in general) cannot falsify the existence of gods. For instance, one can begin to falsify the existence of a god whose major characteristic involves transporting, with a chariot, the sun from its depths when one discovers or points out how "sun rise" works.

It perhaps has not occurred to you that ancient writers could only express what they perceived according to the limitations of their own knowledge.

If a prophet saw a vision wherein airplanes and helicopters were bombing a city, he would describe such as flying scorpions breathing fire upon the earth. This does not mean he has not seen something real: however the limitations of his understanding will lead him to deliver an inchoate description.

At all events that is beside the point. For I do not seek to argue about the existence of Sango or Amadioha, Ishtar, Aphrodite or Venus. I seek to state to you clearly that you can never debunk in any intelligible terms the existence of an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists – and which is what the rational-theist refers to as GOD.

In terms of “gods” also – unless you claim omniscience you CANNOT state with any degree of certainty what exists or does not exist – and you acknowledged that in your penultimate post.

What's bizzare about my choie of words?

“Falsify.” As though something which is true can be rendered false. No biggie though. I understand your context.

Not quite. I'll quote verbatim what I wrote:

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.' [Emphasis not in original]

I hope you get the point now. If you don't I don't mind explaining further.

Please do explain further. My deduction is that you are saying that the representational mathematics above is wrong, and as such cannot stand. Namely that you were merely trying to show up a flaw, and not make a positive assertion in itself.

None of this controverts the fact that you repeatedly stated that the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum. That certainly equates to the emergence of something from nothing. I again submit that that is worse than voodoo.

What is being discovered is that something can "pop into existence from nothing. For the past few years I've given a good example of that: virtual particles. Quantum physics has been showing that many of the things we, as intuitive humans, consider sacrosanct are in fact different from what was expected.

This is absolutely inconceivable and illogical.

You do not have a grasp of what “nothingness” refers to.

The virtual particles you refer to are observed within this universe, no?

The universe is not “nothing.” It is a “something.”

Accordingly it is nonsensical to speak about anything within it as having emerged from nothing – given that the vector space within which the subject is observed is already a “something”.

I hope you see this clearly.

Additionally I need to point out the fact that the failure of human technology to detect something does not mean that it does not exist. Indeed, human technology is deficient and still developing, as you well know. Accordingly the failure of human technology to detect what element such particles “pop” out of, does not suggest that the element does not exist.

For if you truly understand the word “nothingness” you would never be so reckless as to assert that anything may magical “pop” out of nothingness.

For a person with such scientific affinity, you display a reckless love of voodoo and black magic.

+

DS&imhotep
To suggest that something comes from nothing is a suggestion worse than magic.Even particles have origination. i.e 'ex nihilo nihil fit'.
craig vent 'we did extraordinary but we never created a new life from the scratch rather with help from a existing substance'

Deep Sight:

I disagree that I (and anyone in general) cannot falsify the existence of gods. For instance, one can begin to falsify the existence of a god whose major characteristic involves transporting, with a chariot, the sun from its depths when one discovers or points out how "sun rise" works.

It perhaps has not occurred to you that ancient writers could only express what they perceived according to the limitations of their own knowledge.

If a prophet saw a vision wherein airplanes and helicopters were bombing a city, he would describe such as flying scorpions breathing fire upon the earth. This does not mean he has not seen something real: however the limitations of his understanding will lead him to deliver an inchoate description.

Oh, it has occurred to me that ancient writers could only describe things in the way they perceived them - although not to the degree you imply. However, that is part of the problem: as several of things described from their perspectives have, with continued discoveries, been shown wrong and falsified. The earth is not stationary, the gods don't reside just beyond the sky or on mountain tops, nor are humans the products of a magic cow.

At all events that is beside the point. For I do not seek to argue about the existence of Sango or Amadioha, Ishtar, Aphrodite or Venus. I seek to state to you clearly that you can never debunk in any intelligible terms the existence of an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists – and which is what the rational-theist refers to as GOD.

Of course you dismiss those other gods out of hand, as they have all faced falsification. Simply claiming I can't a god with as vague a quality as "an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists" isn't saying much because it's so unclear a descriptor that it could refer to something inanimate. However, gods with clearly defined characteristics have so far shown themselves to be falsifiable, lending credence to the position of gods being constructs of beings.

In terms of “gods” also – unless you claim omniscience you CANNOT state with any degree of certainty what exists or does not exist – and you acknowledged that in your penultimate post.

Prior to this post I had only made two posts. Yes, I can't state absolutely that all gods are dead; what I can claim, though, is that gods when presented by their adherents can be falsified.

“Falsify.” As though something which is true can be rendered false. No biggie though. I understand your context.

Your statement is wrong. What it is, instead, is that something which is claimed to be true can be shown to be false.

Not quite. I'll quote verbatim what I wrote:

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.' [Emphasis not in original]

I hope you get the point now. If you don't I don't mind explaining further.

Please do explain further. My deduction is that you are saying that the representational mathematics above is wrong, and as such cannot stand. Namely that you were merely trying to show up a flaw, and not make a positive assertion in itself.

None of this controverts the fact that you repeatedly stated that the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum. That certainly equates to the emergence of something from nothing. I again submit that that is worse than voodoo.

The former statement is not quite correct. Yes, I was pointing out how badly you were using maths and how bad your logic was proving, but I was making a positive assertion in that the universe may have arisen from a vacuum.

And while you may think something is "worse than voodoo" that doesn't count as a rebuttal, nor does it invalidate findings in quantum physics.

What is being discovered is that something can "pop into existence from nothing. For the past few years I've given a good example of that: virtual particles. Quantum physics has been showing that many of the things we, as intuitive humans, consider sacrosanct are in fact different from what was expected.

This is absolutely inconceivable and illogical.

You do not have a grasp of what “nothingness” refers to.

The virtual particles you refer to are observed within this universe, no?

The universe is not “nothing.” It is a “something.”

First, that you may be unable to conceive of something does not make it illogical.

Second, I'll wager that I have a better understanding of "nothingness" than you do.

Finally, yes, virtual particles are observed within this universe (although, may not be limited to our universe), but short of the probability due to the uncertainty principle, there can be a vacuum in the universe. Hek even humans have created vacuums on earth, whih is in the universe.

Accordingly it is nonsensical to speak about anything within it as having emerged from nothing – given that the vector space within which the subject is observed is already a “something”.

I hope you see this clearly.

Nonsense, you're conflating again.

Additionally I need to point out the fact that the failure of human technology to detect something does not mean that it does not exist. Indeed, human technology is deficient and still developing, as you well know. Accordingly the failure of human technology to detect what element such particles “pop” out of, does not suggest that the element does not exist.

What are you on about? You're not making any sense. A cursory read on virtual particles should show you why you aren't making sense.

For if you truly understand the word “nothingness” you would never be so reckless as to assert that anything may magical “pop” out of nothingness.

For a person with such scientific affinity, you display a reckless love of voodoo and black magic.

I addressed these earlier. I guess your tack is to label sciences you don't know of or don't understand "voodoo and black magic"

manmustwac:

Can you prove that the God that you worship, who you pray to, who you call your saviour, and give 10% of your income to exists outside your imagination? Don't you think that the onus is on you to prove what you believe since your the one who worships him?

what is imagination in itself?

what do you classify as imagination, and how do you prove some things you refer to as imagination arent real in a dimension you cant physically reach?

I wonder why some christains like to involve in the argument that is not relevant to them, when the book of first corinthians 1:18 clearly say "for the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. Leave them if they like they should accept Jesus christ as their savior or they remain in their in their sinful ways and die. I know they believe that witchs and wizards exist unless they are not from Africa. I pray it will not be too late for them.

KAG:


Oh, it has occurred to me that ancient writers could only describe things in the way they perceived them - although not to the degree you imply. However, that is part of the problem: as several of things described from their perspectives have, with continued discoveries, been shown wrong and falsified. The earth is not stationary, the gods don't reside just beyond the sky or on mountain tops, nor are humans the products of a magic cow.

It is quite convenient for you to point out these – NONE of which is advanced within a prophetic book such as the Bible.

- Whereas you fail to take cognisance of the fact that that book that I refer to did state with perfect scientific accuracy, centuries before science did so that –

1. The Earth is a Sphere

2. The Earth “hangs upon nothing”

Both quite engaging if you consider that current thinking at the time of the Prophets Job and Isaiah who inscribed these words was that (1) The Earth was flat and (2) The Earth had physical support in the form of giant animas or other such puerile imaginations.

I am NOT a Christian, and the Bible is NOT my creed, but it is nothing but intellectual dishonesty to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Now in order not to lose direction, and for the purpose of tying this point up with the issue that brought it up: I positively state to you that whatever element was the source of the insights of the prophets who made these statements is NOT an element that you can “falsify”.

There is no doubt that if you, KAG had been alive in those times, like everyone else you would have believed the Earth to be flat and anchored on something heavy. This is more likely given your obvious and lamentably slavish adherence to “current thinking.”

Those prophets would have been millions of light years ahead of you.

It amuses me that you always imagine that current suppositions cannot be wrong. And yet in another breath you speak of being “imaginative.”

Lol.

Simply claiming I can't a god with as vague a quality as "an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists" isn't saying much because it's so unclear a descriptor that it could refer to something inanimate.

No, that is NOT the only quality of the ultimate deity, and I have to warn you to be careful of your use of the reference to “animation”, because animation cannot be the same thing in a physical context as it would be in a spiritual – and God is said to be SPIRIT.

Prior to this post I had only made two posts. Yes, I can't state absolutely that all gods are dead;

Thanks for the concession.

This emphatically shows that YOU CANNOT deny the possible existence of God/ gods.

what I can claim, though, is that gods when presented by their adherents can be falsified.

You cannot even falsify IFA, and you dare mouth off on this.

I positively challenge you to falsify IFA. Go ahead, I’ll meet you there.

You will be astonished at the extent of your ignorance on these matters.

The former statement is not quite correct. Yes, I was pointing out how badly you were using maths and how bad your logic was proving,

You were the one who made the ludicrous equation 0 = 1, not me.

The only sense in which this could be rationalized is the obvious: to wit that zero is not really zero, and thus that your imaginary Alice-in-wonder-land “vacuum” never existed.

but I was making a positive assertion in that the universe may have arisen from a vacuum.

You are a native witch doctor, and a poor excuse for a scientific or rational mind.

This equates to stating that the universe arose suddenly, pointlessly, magically OUT OF NOTHING, and without any intelligent or purposeful direction.

I submit that a person with such lame propositions does not deserve further response on the subject.

Second, I'll wager that I have a better understanding of "nothingness" than you do.

Your understanding of “nothingness” is exactly that – NOTHING.

You have demonstrated a pathetic understanding of that word. I do not know what drives your tragic misapprehension, but let me summarize this for you: by its very definition, nothingness does not exist – it is nothing – and accordingly it is nonexistent.

It is therefore inconceivable for any thing to “arise from nothing” as you postulate. For the simple reason that there is no such thing as “nothing.”

I hope you can wrap your head around that.

Finally, yes, virtual particles are observed within this universe (although, may not be limited to our universe), but short of the probability due to the uncertainty principle, there can be a vacuum in the universe. Hek even humans have created vacuums on earth, whih is in the universe.

I demand of you that you define for me the vacuum that you refer to and show me how it equates nothingness.

Here is what Wiki defines a vacuum as –

In everyday usage, vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is [size=16pt]much less than atmospheric pressure[/size].[1] The word comes from the Latin term for "empty". Even putting aside the complexities of the quantum vacuum, [size=16pt]the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice.[/size] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space", and [size=16pt]use the term partial vacuum to refer to real vacuum.[/size] The Latin term in vacuo is also used to describe an object as being in [size=16pt]what would otherwise be a vacuum.[/size]

Please note the bolded words – THESE EMPHATICALLY PROVE THAT A PERFECT VACUUM DOES NOT EXIST, AND THUS THAT THE VACUUMS YOU REFER TO DO NOT EQUATE NOTHINGNESS!

I wonder what gives you the audacity to make such preposterous assumptions and yet claim a “better understanding” of the word “nothingness”

I trust you will be honest and gracious enough to ADMIT that your understanding was flawed, and that vacuums DO NOT equate nothingness.

I quote the following from Wikipedia –

“Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy.[4] In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum”

And I positively assert to you that the foregoing again shows emphatically that a “vacuum” as herewith described, DOES NOT equate the same thing as “nothingness.” There are myriad elements at interplay here, and this could not be the case in a “nothing.”

Secondly, you have already agreed with me that the space within which such particles have been observed is within this universe. Nobody has observed anything outside this universe, so madam – kindly leave that for the time when such happens. Fact is we have NO IDEA what exists outside this universe so quit the baseless conjecture.

Since you accept –

1. That the space within which such particles have been observed is this universe

2. The universe is NOT Nothing, but is something

3. Then incontestably, such particles could never be construed as arising from nothing – regardless of whether or not we are able to observe the element from which they arise.

I can this conclude that you are irretrievably drunk on what seems to be the zenith of your knowledge and experience – virtual particles. There is nothing in what you have said to connote that you have the slightest apprehension of what they are in fact.

Now please do not display any hasty eagerness to prove your supposed knowledge by reverting inundating me with information I have already seen on Wikipedia – just answer me these questions –

1. What is nothingness?

2. What is a vacuum, in the terms you refer to?

3. How does such a vacuum (imbued with the interplay observed) equate nothingness?

I for my part, restate to you that (x) nothingness by its definition does not exist and (y) It is therefore inconceivable for anything to emerge from nothingness (which is non-existent).

The definition given of a vacuum above shows a number of things –

1. That it has gaseous pressure – only much lower than normally observed atmospheric pressure.

2. the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice

These show that your vacuum is not “nothing” and that no perfect vacuum has ever been observed. (in line with my submission that there is no such thing as nothingness).

Thus your use of this to claim that virtual particles are things that arise out of nothing is tragically flawed: worse – it has shown that you have NO understanding of what a vacuum is since you ignorantly attempted to equate it to nothingness which is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.
Alice in wonderland.

I laugh.

Statement: There are [b]no [/b]squares between the numbers 10 and 15

I am certain that this negative statement can be proved mathematically.