₦airaland Forum

DeepSightZ:
Shameful. Goodluck.

WHEN YOU ARE READY!

MaxInDHouse:
WHEN YOU ARE READY!

Ok. Herre is the question: what is the moral justification for all those acts I listed in red above.
There you go.

PS: I dont expect any response; I know you cant respond.

DeepSightZ:
Ok. Herre is the question: what is the moral justification for all those acts I listed in red above.
There you go.
PS: I dont expect any response; I know you cant respond.

If you want to ask a question you need to quote the scripture then present your own thoughts on the matter so we can discuss not quoting someone else's judgement!

MaxInDHouse:
If you want to ask a question you need to quote the scripture then present your own thoughts on the matter so we can discuss not quoting someone else's judgement!

Lol!!!!!!! Joker!
Abeg shift!

MaxInDHouse:
So if you're truly convinced deep down in your heart that it's all imagination then you don't have to join those who are imagining nah.
Or are you still in doubt regarding your stand?

Where did I express ever wanting to join in your imagining?

People like you make me even more sure that such a god doesn't exist.

DeepSightZ:
Lol!!!!!!! Joker!
Abeg shift!

So in a nutshell it's what someone else thinks that you're mimicking not making use of your own brain!

DeepSightZ:
from Renly Bradell

LordReed:
god doesn't exist.

So why always here on the religion section when Nairaland has many sections you could be?
Why joining those who are imagining?
Àbí are you feeling lonely?

MaxInDHouse:
So in a nutshell it's what someone else thinks that you're mimicking not making use of your own brain!

This is stupid. Those thoughts are my thoughts as well. I only selected them to save the stress of typing. Over many years on this forum I have highlighted these verses over and over again and criticized them. You have no answer, you know your answers will be embarrassing and idiotic and thats why you are resorting to "what someone else thinks."

If I might ask you, when you quote the bible are you not also quoting "what someone else thinks?"

Olodo. You think anyone has time to play your retarded games.
Good night.

LordReed:
Where did I express ever wanting to join in your imagining?

People like you make me even more sure that such a god doesn't exist.

The guy is an immbecile.

DeepSightZ:
This is stupid. Those thoughts are my thoughts as well. I only selected them to save the stress of typing. Over many years on this forum I have highlighted these verses over and over again and criticized them. You have no answer, you know your answers will be embarrassing and idiotic and thats why you are resorting to "what someone else thinks."

If I might ask you, when you quoyte the bible are you not also quoting "what someone else thinks?"

Olodo. You think anyone has time to play your retarded games.
Good night.

If you want to ask questions like an adult you supposed to use your own words and thoughts in a law court if you present such a case it will be dismissed instantly because it simply means you are just like a puppet in the hands of the real accuser.

DeepSightZ:
The guy is an immbecile.

Na so the matter pain you reach?

Ọmọ he never reach this kind thing nah!

MaxInDHouse:
If you want to ask questions like an adult you supposed to use your own words and thoughts in a law court if you present such a case it will be dismissed instantly because it simply means you are just like a puppet in the hands of the real accuser.

I will only do this for the sake of passersby in future, just to completely show you up.

You want my own quote, and my own words? Okay.

2 Kings Chapter 2.

Little children made fun of Prophet Elisha's bald head.

He cursed them and the Lord sent forth bears to tear the children to pieces, killing them.

How is this justifiable.

That's your question, in my words.

My dear nincompoop, dont think I am waiting for you to answer. I am just posting this for readers in future to see the full extent of your cowardice and stupidity.

MaxInDHouse:
So why always here on the religion section when Nairaland has many sections you could be?
Why joining those who are imagining?
Àbí are you feeling lonely?

LoLz. This is just pathetic.

DeepSightZ:
The guy is an immbecile.

He occasionally regresses into child like nonsense.

DeepSightZ:
2 Kings Chapter 2.
Little children made fun of Prophet Elisha's bald head.
He cursed them and the Lord sent forth bears to tear the children to pieces, killing them.
How is this justifiable.

If you've not met anyone who will answer you politely despite your haughtiness i'm different Sir! 1Peter 3:15

Back to your question:

Israelites supposed to teach their babies from infancy God's laws {Deuteronomy 6:6-7} and it's a crime to insult an elderly person not to talk of the messenger of their God sent to deliver God's message to them. So God killed those children as punishment for their parents who failed to inculcate in them respect for elderly ones:

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live a long time in the land that Jehovah your God is giving you," Exodus 20:12

Do you notice the highlighted in blue?

Well it's on that same land that this boys were insulting not just an elderly person but a prophet of that same God.

Now according to the constitution given to that nation do such children deserve to live long on that same land?

LordReed:
LoLz. This is just pathetic.

If you're lonely tell us because we know there's no forum where atheists can converge to share your thoughts on ATHEISM!

MaxInDHouse:
If you've not met anyone who will answer you politely despite your haughtiness i'm different Sir! 1Peter 3:15

Back to your question:

Israelites supposed to teach their babies from infancy God's laws {Deuteronomy 6:6-7} and it's a crime to insult an elderly person not to talk of the messenger of their God sent to deliver God's message to them. So God killed those children as punishment for their parents who failed to inculcate in them respect for elderly ones:

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live a long time in the land that Jehovah your God is giving you," Exodus 20:12

Do you notice the highlighted in blue?

Well it's on that same land that this boys were insulting not just an elderly person but a prophet of that same God.

Now according to the constitution given to that nation do such children deserve to live long on that same land?

Being petty enough to respond to the childlike jokes of children by murdering them is beyond psychopathic.
But what am I to expect from a person such as yourself who just defended the mass murder of innocent infants.

Abeg. I am done with you.

MaxInDHouse:
If you're lonely tell us because we know there's no forum where atheists can converge to share your thoughts on ATHEISM!

LoLz. You're just jonsing.

DeepSightZ:
Being petty enough to respond to the childlike jokes of children my murdering them is beyond psychopathic.
But what am I to expect from a person such as yourself who just defended the mass murder of innocent infants.

Abeg. I am done with you.

You can sometimes feel the ick coming from him. Eyama.

DeepSightZ:
Being petty enough to respond to the childlike jokes of children my murdering them is beyond psychopathic.
But what am I to expect from a person such as yourself who just defended the mass murder of innocent infants.
Abeg. I am done with you.

Thanks for letting the forum know on what moral justification those children are to be killed on the same land their God commanded that children must honor their elders!

LordReed:
LoLz. You're just jonsing.

OK nah!

LordReed:
You can sometimes feel the ick coming from him. Eyama.

Sometimes i wonder why you always come back to me after saying you won't engage me again!

LordReed:
You can sometimes feel the ick coming from him. Eyama.

Wahallahi!

"no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the Lord.

‭Isaiah 54:17 NIV‬

I just love the God of Israel because He is always on point, just see how atheists are SILENCED only for them to start consoling one another!

MaxInDHouse:
Sometimes i wonder why you always come back to me after saying you won't engage me again!

LoLz. As if it was not you who broke the pact, after being the one to request it. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:
LoLz. As if it was not you who broke the pact, after being the one to request it. Bwahahahahaha!

I can understand!

MaxInDHouse:
I can understand!

Good. LoLz.

Always remember this;

"Atheists and Heathens always respond, behave and talk the same way. Even though they have no common assembly.

Why? Very simple. They are all ruled by the same spirit; THE DEVIL"

SeraphicWind:
Always remember this;
"Atheists and Heathens always respond, behave and talk the same way. Even though they have no common assembly.
Why? Very simple. They are all ruled by the same spirit; THE DEVIL"

According to God's word the whole world is ruled by the same spirit; The Devil {1John 5:19 compare to 2Corinthians 4:4; John 14:30} that is why Jesus said:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matthew 10:16

So Satan has turned the minds of many against God and true Christians are the peacemakers {Matthew 5:9} who are assigned by the Prince of Peace {Isaiah 9:6} to preaching to them! Matthew 10:7-15

Apologies for the late response. Yesterday (...and seemingly the coming week) was an avalanche of important activities, that I simply couldn't cast aside. Anyways, let's jump right back into the action...

DeepSightZ:
Thank you my friend. The reason I have taken this "pre-emptive" strike against quantum physics is simple: much of it remains in the realm of speculation and conjecture still - and even that which is certain about it is mired in deep uncertainty - surely you know this. Einstein described it as "spooky action at a distance" which was a way of indicating that it was something that still appeared to be in the realm of magic and phantoms.

I'm afraid your invocation of Einstein's "spooky action" quote, curiously enough, demonstrates the exact opposite of what you might have intended here. Einstein used that phrase, I believe, precisely because the concept of quantum entanglement appeared to outrightly violate his classical intuitions and ideas, about causality and locality, and guess what? Quantum mechanics came out on top in that particular debate, lol. So Einstein got it wrong, and the "spooky action" he deemed to be so disturbing, has now been established as a thoroughly demonstrated, and repeatable phenomenon, and is literally the basis for building quantum computers today. So I don't know if citing Einstein's skepticism here accomplishes much, as it is an argument that history has pretty much settled already, and not in your favor.

This is not to say that there isnt value there, it is simply to say that the science of quantum physics is still at such an elementary and rudimentary stage as yet , such that no one can claim to understand it. It will therefore be very shaky grounds on which to base concrete arguments on existential issues - especially when we are dealing with something so intrinsic to our reality as causality.

I'll have you know that QM is arguably one of, if not THE most precisely tested theory, throughout the history of science. In fact, it is extraordinarily precise science. Certain quantum effects can be predicted to an accuracy equivalent to taking measurements of the width of North America, to within the width of a human's hair. I don't see how you can classify this as rudimentary, or "shaky grounds", simply because it challenges our intuitive notions about what causality is, and what it entails. If anything, it's perfect evidence of the fact that we have much more to learn, about the subject of causality. I think it's much more likely, that our ape-evolved knowledge or conceptions about QM, is incomplete, than for it to be wrong. Don't forget, it is said to be the most verified theory in physics.

No one, for example, will rely on quantum physics in our daily life to avoid the direct consequences of their actions and the dictates of causality as we know them. It is easy enough to make a vague statement such as "towards or close to the beginning of the universe, the laws of physics as we know them break down" and thereby seek to magically invoke quantum physics to fill the gap.

Smartphones, GPS, lasers etc etc easily crumble your assertion here, because QM plays a major role in how they all function, so I'm not sure I understand where this bizarre narrative came from. The transistors residing within your computer device/s, the LED screens we're both probably staring at, right now, are manifested via the direct application of QM principles. There's quite a number of misapprehensions, you seem to be having about the QM though, misconstruing it as some form of esoteric thought experiment, when it is in fact, the very foundation today for a lot of our modern tech gadgets and thingamajigs, lol. So I'm sorry, but I can't, and won't relate to your outright dismissal of QM, on this topic.

I humbly submit that this is no better than the "God of the gaps" which atheists often accuse religionists of. Where you dont understand something, you invoke the fairy of quantum physics as an escape. That will not do please.

Take a good squint around the corner, and you might observe, that we heckle religionists and apologists for the "God of the gaps" sleight of hand, precisely because it needlessly inserts an unfalsifiable, supernatural explanation, where natural reasons might be lacking. Not so with QM! In fact, it's quite absurd that you would look at a rigorously tested scientific framework like QM, which has immense predictive power, and is also mathematically consistent, and attempt to pigeonhole it in the same category as nebulous concepts like divine intervention.

As I said yesterday, I find the bold most worrisome, and statements such as that, however you may try to excuse them, are the fastest way to chase me away from a conversation.

While it's entirely your prerogative, to feel that way, I frankly don't see the need for you to clutch pearls over my statement. If you perceive that this debate will lead nowhere, then I won't begrudge you for abandoning it. I only just tried using an example from everyday living, based on thermodynamic principles, to illustrate what I think (and know) is a poignant, fundamental point about causation.

I saw that you tried to make a distinction between "nothing" and no triggers" the other day and to be honest that only wearied me more. Because fundamentally, I am certain you know the point is that there is a cause, whatever you may describe it as - a drive towards equilibrium, the laws of thermodynamics, whatever. There is a cause and that is the point. And once there is a cause it is patently absurd to say there is no "trigger."

Well, you've already made it clear, how problematic this segment of our correspondence is to you, and now, I think I can see why. Before I demonstrate how your lack of understanding factors into this segment, I'll just point out to you, firstly, that you have produced a perfect example of what philosophers term the motte-and-bailey fallacy. How, you say? When your original position is challenged and/or questioned [the bailey: traditional causation], you then retreat, to a definition that is almost needlessly broad [the motte: "any preceding state of affairs"], except this broader definition is no longer sufficient to carry out the philosophical assignment, you set out to do in the first place.

If you can't see the problem yet, I'll double down, and this is where QM really lays the smackdown. In the case of quantum tunneling, or virtual particles popping in and out of existence, or in the case of radioactive decay, can we actually decipher the "preceding state of affairs" that should serve as the trigger, hmmm? How about the mere existence of probability fields, or quantum vacuum itself? If every single thing, that precedes any given event must count as the "trigger" for said event, then we're just diluting the concept of causation to the point of sheer meaninglessness. As with what I tried to demonstrate with my coffee example, there exists many physical processes which do not require discrete triggers in any meaningful sense, but are just manifestations of the primary properties of reality itself. If you wish to expand your definition, in order to accomodate even those properties as "triggers", you're inadvertently defining causation as reality existing and operating, in accordance with its very own nature, and once we arrive at this juncture, we then have to ponder on what explanatory power this peculiar concept of triggers, actually has.

It occurred to me though, that perhaps by "trigger" you think I mean the agency of a person. If that is the case, please perish the thought. I am not saying that. And this goes for Lord Reed as well, for he said he doubts "it is the cause I am reaching for" - if either of you think that by "trigger" I refer to the agency of a person - kindly know that I do not. A trigger is simply a predeceing cause, an event or even state of affairs that causes something to happen.

I believe my explanation, just right above, will also suffice here.

This may be a good juncture in which to clarify that I dont know if the God that I am saying necessarily exists is personal, has self awareness or identity. I only know that it is something that necessarily and logically must exist for any other thing to exist.

Okay. But why call it "God" at all? Is it really necessary? What's wrong with just calling it "reality" or "the universe", and dropping the theological baggage altogether?

In philosophy, it is called a neccessary thing, as oppposed to a contingent thing. In philosophy, necessary things necessarily exist. I have said already that for me, infinite space and eternal time are necessary things. And therefore components of God.

At the very best, this is just philosophical sleight-of-hand. If I wake up one morning, and choose to define my coffee mug as "that thing which necessarily contains my morning coffee" it doesn't follow that my mug is now imbued with any metaphysical properties, that make it stand out from other mugs. So far, your argument sounds like an attempt to bootstrap God into existence by definition, as opposed to actually demonstrating his existence.

If the universe is itself space and time and everything else, into what is it expanding?
Dwell carefully on this question because it is at the very centre of much that is important in this discussion.

There isn't really much to dwell on here, I'm sorry, as the question is pretty much DOA [Dead On Arrival]. I'll try to explain. You see, you've already fallen into the common trap of thinking about our universe in terrestrial terms that are familiar to us, and it tacitly betrays the exact same anthropocentric spatial intuitions that led the ancient medieval philosophers to commit category errors, by asking questions like "what's north of the North Pole?" or "what happened before time began?. But lest I veer too far from the conversation, the universe is definitely not like a balloon inflating into the surrounding air, even though this particular analogy has often been used regularly (rather unfortunately, If I might add) in pop-science explanations. What you're calling "expansion" is actually nothing but the scale factor of space itself, continuously increasing. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this properly, but what this means, is that the distances existing between gravitationally unbound objects, are growing larger, however, they're not actually moving "through" anything, neither are they moving "into" anywhere. The only thing changing here, is the metric itself.

Then again, we might as well rename cosmic expansion to "metric scaling" or "spatial dilation", so that we may avoid tripping over such linguistic pitfalls, but alas, we find ourselves stuck with the ancient historical terminology and all of its inaccurate, misleading baggage. Sometimes, our own language itself can become the enemy of proper understanding, like being forced to elucidate on QM via classical physics analogies, lmao.

Current best science does say that the universe had a beginning, that it expanded from the point of a singularity and that is why an age is ascribed to the universe.

True, but you can't actually take current cosmological models in science, and describe them as absolute ontological truth. All current physical models break down catastrophically, at the singularity, which is a mathematical asymptote, where ALL of our predictive equations are rendered meaningless, so at best we can call it the limit of our current epistemological resources. Models like the BBT [Big Bang], only describe an extraordinary expansion, rather than a starting point, in the metaphysical sense that you've implied.

I have already explained in my intro why I cannot accept the escape of "quantum" physics or mechanics.
It explains and says nothing and is nothing but an escape.

Again, your prerogative. As well-evidenced as it is, QM doesn't exactly need a stamp of approval from anyone here. Causality is not a rigid, deterministic motion of objects colliding together, and it's a proven fact.

By the way, you may believe that this universe is all that exists, but I certainly do not. And if you are to scale this hurdle you have to first tell me what the universe is expanding into.

Asked and answered. The universe doesn't necessarily require an "outside" any more than a sphere necessarily requires a space beyond of its surface.

Please dont say "nothingness" as that will take us too far out too sea, given that nonthingness, by definition, does not exist.

No can do, sire. No linguistic barricade exists, that can protect this strange theological edifice you've built, from collapsing under the weight, of its own definitional contradictions. QM already scoffs at any attempts, to stifle ontological possibility/ies, with definitional razor wires, lol.

There is nothing obsfucatory about the word "transcendental," it simply means that which transcends or is beyond something else.

No clarifications have been made yet, I'm afraid. The moment you decide to invoke something that supposedly exists, beyond our observable universe, and without any empirical evidence to support, then you're just relocating the mystery and pretending that you've explained or solved it. It's intellectual three-card monte.

I dont expect you to just agree with me or even follow what I am trying to say. Remember I told you I have been at this for 16 years on this board with no success in terms of getting any skeptic to see what I am propounding so know that its really not every point that can be elucidated to conclusion. Somethings which are simple and obvious to me may be invisible to you and vice versa and I have learnt that quite often one has to leave it at that.

...and that's fine. I strongly disagree with your findings, obviously, but I respect the intellectual journey you've embarked on, that led you to your current perspective.

Are you a strict materialist? Do you believe that only physical things exist and non-physical things do not exist?

No, I'm not a "strict materialist", especially not in the same vein of a religious devotee who clings tenaciously to dogma. I do not "believe" things exist, but provisionally accept only those claims that can be demonstrated via methodologies which are rigorous and reproducible. Non-physical entities, as far as I know, elude all scientific scrutiny, so I see no point, entertaining such concepts.

Infinity by definition cannot be numbered. And surely it must occur to you that if there were an infinite regress of causes, no event will ever occur and no universe will ever exist. Do I have to break this down? Please dont ask me, try look up the subject in philosophy.

There exists robust conceptual frameworks, within the field of mathematics, that paradoxically, are designed for the purpose of handling infinite sets. As a matter of fact, mathematicians routinely engage with multiple orders of infinity. For instance, Cantor's work on transfinite numbers, without going into too much detail, completely obliterates the idea that infinity implies not being able to understand anything. Assuming that just because a series is infinite, it necessarily follows that its' elements cannot progress, or be able to generate emergent phenomena, is a fallacious assumption, born from a fundamental misunderstanding of temporal dynamics, and modal logic.

Those attrributes are logically deduced. I hope you notice they do not include religious attributes such as ominiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, good, kind, loving, merciful, forgiving, just etc.

But you've only succeeded in constructing a linguistic scaffold of grandiose adjectives like "permanent", "transcendental" etc, which are at best, sophisticated dodges. I don't suppose logical deductions should involve wrapping unsubstantiated assertions in transparent philosophical lingerie.

On a lighter note, if our creator(s) have any personal attributes, I have often reflected that sadism must be one.

Twisted sadist/s, yes I agree.

I dont think you are familiar with the philosophical precepts of necessary and contingent things.

Then maybe you can enlighten me? Or at least provide a substantive epistemological grounding for your assertions of which objects are " necessary", and "contingent".

Time, for example is a necessary thing. So is space. Neither of these things can fail to exist. They are intrinsically basic to existence. They are the default state of reality.

...another notion technically debunked by QM. Plus, Hawking's work on singularities sheds a good amount of light, on how our classical understanding of space-time breaks down under very extreme conditions.

SeraphicWind:
Always remember this;

"Atheists and Heathens always respond, behave and talk the same way. Even though they have no common assembly.

Why? Very simple. They are all ruled by the same spirit; THE DEVIL"

And you people claim the devil is defeated and under your feet but you are too afraid to talk to an atheist. LoLz. Freaking LARPers. Bwahahahahahaha!

Dear TheDevilsBride,

You may recall that at the onset, I told you that it would be crucial that you accept fundamental principles of causality, and that deploying Quantum Physics to deny same would render the discussion impossible. For this reason, I am unable to proceed with this conversation. In saying so, I must point out that while aspects of Quantum Physics / Mechanics are indeed proven and already useful in science as you point out, there is as yet no concrete proof of those theoretical aspects of it which speak to the breakdown of the laws of physics at any "place" or "time" close to the origin of the universe. This is theory and speculation only and is by no means proven. If I am wrong, and there is concrete proof of this, please by all means draw same to my attention. So for clarity, I say - that those aspects of quantum physics which pertain to this existential discussion - and which specfically abrogate the known principles of causality - are unproven.

(Let me briefly cite a case in point: many people have tried to use virtual particles in a quantum vacuum as evidence that things may "pop" out of "nothingness" uncaused. This is wrong because there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere, and those so called quantum vacuums contain low gaseous pressure. Dont take my word for it, investigate.)

I thus cannot proceed with the discussion.

I will only add that I also do not buy your explanation on "triggers" and most importantly, it is absolutely impossible for anything to expand if there isnt pre-existing space into which it expands. On this point, I will not even entertain any cavil whatsoever, it is an iron cast point of both logic and commonsense and no voodoo can take it away.

There are many other fine points I would have loved to discuss in your write up, but as we do in law - when a matter is disposed off by a supervening point or principle, we do not waste time with other details. Thus, on the ground that you insist on unproven quantum principles to denounce causality, I have to drop the subject.

It has, nonetheless, been a pleasure.