₦airaland Forum

Budaatum. Back to the infinite regress. I argued it was impossible. Just came across a video where someone tries to put it differently and i wondered if it could help make the point clearer.

In this very short clip, listen to the second argument made. He says that if you are asked to start from negative infinity and arrive at zero, you would never make it.

Do you see the point? Do you also see why this is actually the same argument I made?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/faNoCuMD8JY

DeepSight:
Budaatum. Back to the infinite regress. I argued it was impossible. Just came across a video where someone tries to put it differently and i wondered if it could help make the point clearer.

In this very short clip, listen to the second argument made. He says that if you are asked to start from negative infinity and arrive at zero, you would never make it.

Do you see the point? Do you also see why this is actually the same argument I made?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/faNoCuMD8JY

I do see your point, Deep, and do not have a problem with your point, since I simply see it as pointing to how you think and reason. What I do find amusing however, is your attempt to create me in your image to think and reason and point like you do, which I do not.

Did you hear him say "there must be a first cause". And then jump to "there was a first cause"? Logic does not work that way, and thinking it does is plain îgnorant, and for the foolish.

The world that promoted first cause ideology did not know about the number zero, and was more ignorant about negative numbers until relatively recently. They started counting from 1, which was their beginning, and went 2, 3, .... x. Humans eventually learnt about zero and were able to go backwards to -1, -2, -3, -x. Both go to infinity, but I wouldn't bother using that to prove anything about gods or first cause or even an infinite regression to you.

What you do not get is, even if there had been a big bang about 14 billion years ago, that moment would not have been the first caused event even though we count it as point 1 or even zero. Because a period must have existed prior to something forming to get big enough to go bang, and there is no reason to claim that forming did not take a further 14 billion years. And instead of just admitting that I have in no way exhausted regressing to 14 billion years ago, not to talk of whatever period might have existed prior to the start of that 14 billion years ago, you demand one insert some imaginary first causer that spontaneously came into existence all by itself, while avoiding the flaw in your own rational that claims everything must have a causer. And note that word please. It means creator. When the truth is more likely that everything must have a cause, as in, a reason for being. It's a distinction I was hoping from you but which you seem not able to distinguish.

You are aware that 14 billion years ago, and the imaginary further 14 billion that I am suggesting might have preceded it is still not infinity, right?

Now the philosophy. Or call it, implication.

Most arguments you have with many, especially in the thread we both engage in much, is a 'regression'. They stop at a particular point and claim "that is", while you dig deeper and know it isn't. Basically, you simply 'regress' further back in the knowledge tree than they do. None of us reaches the infinite first cause of knowledge, though we like to claim we do, just that some dig deeper than some. Pity you can't do the same here.

Sorry, Deep, but no mathematician worth their salt would talk the sort of rubbish in the youtube above to attempt to prove Gods. Just reading the comments shows the sort of people such 'logic' appeals to. It's not my "point", but I can understand if it is yours.

budaatum:
I do see your point, Deep, and do not have a problem with your point, since I simply see it as pointing to how you think and reason. What I do find amusing however, is your attempt to create me in your image to think and reason and point like you do, which I do not.

Did you hear him say "there must be a first cause". And then jump to "there was a first cause"? Logic does not work that way, and thinking it does is plain îgnorant, and for the foolish.

+
I think your post shows that you dont quite follow the first cause argument and also that you make some very wrong assumptions about it. I will explain.

The world that promoted first cause ideology did not know about the number zero, and was more ignorant about negative numbers until relatively recently. They started counting from 1, which was their beginning, and went 2, 3, .... x. Humans eventually learnt about zero and were able to go backwards to -1, -2, -3, -x. Both go to infinity, but I wouldn't bother using that to prove anything about gods or first cause or even an infinite regression to you.

+
Zero is not a number per se. It is just a concept we use to indicate nothingness or an absence.

What you do not get is, even if there had been a big bang about 14 billion years ago, that moment would not have been the first caused event even though we count it as point 1 or even zero. Because a period must have existed prior to something forming to get big enough to go bang, and there is no reason to claim that forming did not take a further 14 billion years. And instead of just admitting that I have in no way exhausted regressing to 14 billion years ago, not to talk of whatever period might have existed prior to the start of that 14 billion years ago, you demand one insert some imaginary first causer that spontaneously came into existence all by itself, while avoiding the flaw in your own rational that claims everything must have a causer. And note that word please. It means creator.

+
Here are the assumptions and wrongs in your understanding. I will keep them brief.

1. You assume that all believers in the first cause argument see that first cause as the beginning of the physical universe or the big bang. I for one dont. For me, the first cause would be immaterial and self existent.

2. You imagine that a first cause implies that one thinks such a cause spontaneously came into existence in itself. This betrays a deep misapprehension of the argument. If you look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a reference, it very carefully states "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause." It does not say "all that exists has a cause."

This difference is extremely critical.

When the truth is more likely that everything must have a cause,

+
Some things are uncaused. They are necessary and self existent. What would you say caused eternity for example?

as in, a reason for being.

+
We have to be very careful with words here (while appreciating that the words we have are limited in such a delicate matter). Because a cause in this matter would be different from a rationale. A cause would be a trigger whereas a rationale will simply be an explanation. A trigger would necessarily be an event while an explanation may not be an event, it may refer to a static state of things or reality which does not change.

You are aware that 14 billion years ago, and the imaginary further 14 billion that I am suggesting might have preceded it is still not infinity, right?

+
Of course and pivoting to the real question: surely you agree that we could never arrive at today if the causes of today rest in an infinite regress of causes, same as you could never arrive at Number one if you are counting from negative infinity.

This is simply put enough to be absorbed.

Sorry, Deep, but no mathematician worth their salt would talk the sort of rubbish in the youtube above to attempt to prove Gods. Just reading the comments shows the sort of people such 'logic' appeals to. It's not my "point", but I can understand if it is yours.

+
What he said was simple and true (the second argument) unless you want to show me how to arrive at 1 counting from minus infinity.

DeepSight:
+
I think your post shows that you dont quite follow the first cause argument and also that you make some very wrong assumptions about it. I will explain. .

That is your assumption, and you are free to have it. My own view is people say the above when they are disagreed with.

DeepSight:
+
Here are the assumptions and wrongs in your understanding. I will keep them brief.

1. You assume that all believers in the first cause argument see that first cause as the beginning of the physical universe or the big bang. I for one dont. For me, the first cause would be immaterial and self existent..

This is your assumption. My understanding is that your first cause caused the universe to come into existence, the Big Bang merely being what scientists refer to as that instance when existence (as known) began. Scientists will also tell you that they do not know what preceded the coming into existence of the universe as known.

And that's why I asked you what caused the first cause to come into existence and then cause the universe to exist, which you wuruwuru into immaterial existence all by itself without even providing any evidence of its existence. And the fact that you call it a "belief" is why I give it short shrift, since you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

It's after all not like I can't choose to believe the Spaghetti Monster done it if that's what I want to believe. But asking you to believe it too might be difficult for me, I'd think, especially if I claim it is immaterial and self existent but can't provide any evidence of its immateriality nor existence apart from my say so that it does exist immaterially.

But lets try it, shall we.

An immaterial fairy exists at the bottom of my garden! It's there because I believe it's there.

You buying?

DeepSight:
2. You imagine that a first cause implies that one thinks such a cause spontaneously came into existence in itself. This betrays a deep misapprehension of the argument. If you look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a reference, it very carefully states "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause." It does not say "all that exists has a cause.".

Thing is, it is claimed that there was a big bang and the universe as is known came into existence, and not many would not argue that the big bang did not have a cause, sunce something big must have existed to go bang. But instead of stopping there, you now invent an immaterial uncaused causer and claim it must have existed.

Why?

Can't you just accept that we do not know what caused what caused the big bang (if there was a big bang, that is)?

And why anthropomorphize it and call it a causer?

Please know that atheist me does not buy into the Kalam Cosmological Argument!

DeepSight:
+
Some things are uncaused. They are necessary and self existent. What would you say caused eternity for example?.

This is just absurd!

What is eternity?

Does eternity self exist?

Where or and how does eternity exist?

DeepSight:
+
We have to be very careful with words here (while appreciating that the words we have are limited in such a delicate matter). Because a cause in this matter would be different from a rationale. A cause would be a trigger whereas a rationale will simply be an explanation. A trigger would necessarily be an event while an explanation may not be an event, it may refer to a static state of things or reality which does not change..

You don't say, "We have to be very careful with words here" lol.

I'd say we must be very careful indeed! I'd go even further and say one must not include gobledygook in serious conversation, but we'd only end up arguing what gobledygook is.

Are you claiming your first cause was a trigger, like my something big that might have existed to trigger a bang?

The scientist in my would agree if that's what you mean.

Its like claiming the gully of a river is caused by the water that flows. Or pepper in my eyes made tears fall down my face. They may indeed "cause", but I wouldn't then call them causers, especially if by cause you mean create, since they merely activated a process and did not necessarily create the situation that made the process occur or be what is observed.

DeepSight:
Of course and pivoting to the real question: surely you agree that we could never arrive at today if the causes of today rest in an infinite regress of causes, same as you could never arrive at Number one if you are counting from negative infinity. This is simply put enough to be absorbed.

This is meaningless, sorry! And its a lame attempt to gaslight!

You have not arrived at enough causes before inserting your causer, is the problem I have with it.

If I wanted to be absurd, its like claiming women get pregnant when a mare farts, which was a belief once held by some before they looked deeper.

You, like them, have not looked deep enough and are claiming infinite regression, is my main objection.

DeepSight:
+
What he said was simple and true (the second argument) unless you want to show me how to arrive at 1 counting from minus infinity.

Numbers do not have infinity. There is always a plus or minus 1 from whatever you determine infinity to be.

We struggle to determine what actually happened a million years ago, so speculation is what we do further back than that since we just do not know. Humans are however not satisfied with not knowing so they insert an immaterial causer in the gap of their knowledge, and buda is far too ignorant to do that, sorry .

Deepsight, please know that I do not assume that you do not understand my own point. I think you do understand my point because I believe I have explained it well enough to be understood, and I consider you capable of understanding my point.

You disagree with my point, and that's okay. It would be very stupid of me to think you are stupid and or don't understand my point just because you disagree with my point.

Do note.

budaatum:
Deepsight, please know that I do not assume that you do not understand my own point. I think you do understand my point because I believe I have explained it well enough to be understood, and I consider you capable of understanding my point.

You disagree with my point, and that's okay. It would be very stupid of me to think you are stupid and or don't understand my point just because you disagree with my point.

Do note.

+
It's obvious it's not useful to press the point. We are not even speaking the same language.

DeepSight:
+
It's obvious it's not useful to press the point. We are not even speaking the same language.

Obviously, lol. Though I do very clearly understand your point, which I vehemently disagree with.

budaatum:
Obviously, lol. Though I do very clearly understand your point, which I vehemently disagree with.

+
I doubt that you understand it from some of the things you say, such as invoking FSM.

Nonetheless we have not even scratched the surface of the matter. Sadly we can't because as I said we are not speaking the same language. If we were, we could explore it and get to ask questions that touch on the nature of eternity, self existence and immaterial things. Those are deep stuff and when you say wuruwuru it's clear we can't have even a proper attempt at it. It's fine.

DeepSight:
+
I doubt that you understand it from some of the things you say, such as invoking FSM.

Nonetheless we have not even scratched the surface of the matter. Sadly we can't because as I said we are not speaking the same language. If we were, we could explore it and get to ask questions that touch on the nature of eternity, self existence and immaterial things. Those are deep stuff and when you say wuruwuru it's clear we can't have even a proper attempt at it. It's fine.

Deep, we are not speaking the same language is the entire point! But see how you slyly imply that I can not understand "deep stuff", lol, like I am braindead or mentally challenged, when the truth is your argument is as illogical as the baseless Kalam Cosmological Argument that has been propounded since Aristotle and dumped by most except theologists who make crap up to believe.

And that's why you'd need to put effort in to understand instead of rehashing what any atheist worth the salt would just laugh at when raised. Or do you seriously believe you are the first to throw such crap at me on Nairaland?

Note I asked you to explain eternity, but you can not or at least have not. It's theological gobbledegook as far as this conversation goes and as far as I am concerned, unless you define what you mean by it but haven't.

Inserting an immaterial nonexistent entity in the gap of your knowledge and claiming it exists is indeed wuruwuru, and is no different to what theists do with their imaginary Yahweh and Allah and angels and spirits, and is what I have done with my spaghetti monster, which you can not accept. I wonder why.

Question though, because I'm curious and do not want to assume.

Do you consider yourself to be a theist?

budaatum:
Deep, we are not speaking the same language is the entire point! But see how you slyly imply that I can not understand "deep stuff", lol, like I am braindead or mentally challenged, when the truth is your argument is as illogical as the baseless Kalam Cosmological Argument that has been propounded since Aristotle and dumped by most except theologists who make crap up to believe.

And that's why you'd need to put effort in to understand instead of rehashing what any atheist worth the salt would just laugh at when raised. Or do you seriously believe you are the first to throw such crap at me on Nairaland?

Note I asked you to explain eternity, but you can not or at least have not. It's theological gobbledegook as far as this conversation goes and as far as I am concerned, unless you define what you mean by it but haven't.

Inserting an immaterial nonexistent entity in the gap of your knowledge and claiming it exists is indeed wuruwuru, and is no different to what theists do with their imaginary Yahweh and Allah and angels and spirits, and is what I have done with my spaghetti monster, which you can not accept. I wonder why.

Question though, because I'm curious and do not want to assume.

Do you consider yourself to be a theist?

+
Its fine. I wouldn't have suspected you of this agbero approach to a delicate discussion with so many insults and all, its just no use.

And its obvious you dont even understand the Kalam, otherwise you would never have made the hideous mischaracterization of saying that in terms of a first cause argument it is ever suggested that everything has a cause.

Lets just forget it.

As per your question, I used to be deist, but today I simply say I dont know. I am agnostic.

DeepSight:
+
Its fine. I wouldn't have suspected you of this agbero approach to a delicate discussion with so many insults and all, its just no use.
I used to be deist, but today I simply say I dont know. I am agnostic.

I feel you do not quite realise that claiming one does not understand is agbero approach. It's condescending and patronising and rude and insulting, and you should be able to accept the coins you dish out. Or do you think I am too thick to notice?

For your information, you have not once said you don't know, despite me repeatedly offering it as way out for you here, since neither of us can possibly know what happened a million years ago not to talk of when the universe came into existence or before then!

You have in fact been claiming you do know, because, "infinite regression", and you insult me for not accepting your beliefs as knowledge! An agnostic would not peddle beliefs. At best they'd say what they think, but they definitely wouldn't be asking one to believe what they believe like theists do.

I think you are still a deist, which is really just another word for theist without the god worship. And it makes me think of my Lordreed who took a while to abandon his theist language after becoming an atheist. You, on the other hand, haven't bothered to de-deify, and still talk in deist language, and can not understand my atheist language and therefore must ad hominem and moan when dished what you serve.

DeepSight:
+
Lets just forget it.

You may just forget whatever you want to just forget, but do not expect buda to do what you choose to do.

I so like Nairaland because whatever we say is there till Nairaland dies, which I hope is long after I die. So even if you choose to forget, the reminder will always be here.

budaatum:
I feel you do not quite realise that claiming one does not understand is agbero approach. It's condescending and patronising and rude and insulting, and you should be able to accept the coins you dish out. Or do you think I am too thick to notice?

For your information, you have not once said you don't know, despite me repeatedly offering it as way out for you here, since neither of us can possibly know what happened a million years ago not to talk of when the universe came into existence or before then!

You have in fact been claiming you do know, because, "infinite regression", and you insult me for not accepting your beliefs as knowledge! An agnostic would not peddle beliefs. At best they'd say what they think, but they definitely wouldn't be asking one to believe what they believe like theists do.

I think you are still a deist, which is really just another word for theist without the god worship. And it makes me think of my Lordreed who took a while to abandon his theist language after becoming an atheist. You, on the other hand, haven't bothered to de-deify, and still talk in deist language, and can not understand my atheist language and therefore must ad hominem and moan when dished what you serve.

+
The ad hominems are all yours and I am left suspecting you still have an ax to grind, But that is your cup of tea.
As for the infinite regress problem, nothing can change the fact that if you start from negative infinity you will never arrive at 1. That is iron clad and a million words from ignorance, hurt or pride will do nothing to change it.

DeepSight:
+
The ad hominems are all yours and I am left suspecting you still have an ax to grind, But that is your cup of tea.
As for the infinite regress problem, nothing can change the fact that if you start from negative infinity you will never arrive at 1. That is iron clad and a million words from ignorance, hurt or pride will do nothing to change it.

You are very wrong! Though there is absolutely no reason to start from negative infinity when one can start at 0 minus 1. Or can you not subtract 1 from zero?

The universe as known has been dated to have begun about 14 billion years ago at time zero, and saying there was no time before 14 billion years ago is like claiming the universe was spontaneously caused into existence at point zero and here we are 14 billion years later. You however can not make such a claim, but insist there must have been a causer of the universe. And by your own argument, is it not logical to presume that your causer must have existed before 14 billion years ago in order to cause the universe into existence 14 billion years ago?

In fact, whose to say your causer did not itself exist 14 billion years or even for "eternity" before it began causing and before the universe itself came into existence 14 billion years later? Whose even to say that there was no creator of the causer who existed 140 billions years before your causer was caused, if we want to make things up to believe?

An agnostic and an atheist would say, we do not know what might have existed and for how long it existed prior to the universe coming into existence, but that's not your position. Instead, deist you inserts a timeless imaginary immaterial entity at some point where your knowledge stops and you call that point "negative infinity".

Point is, negative infinity is rather pointless as far as the supposed 14 billion year old universe is concerned. You yourself are limiting yourself to the day or even second before the universe came into existence when you invoke a causer of the universe, which is just another word for god or an intelligent designer, whom you claim is immaterial and timeless, which I presume means it 'existed' for an infinite amount of time before it began causing. And you can not engage with the notion that while something big may have existed before the universe banged into existence, since something has to exist to go bang, it is not necessarily a (creator) causer. Then you confuse your own argument by appealing to an imaginary causer that you claim must have existed before the universe existed, and you call it a first causer while denying it is a creator god, lol, when it can easily just have been an increase in pressure or whatnot.

Do you not see that your claim is no different to that made by Christians when they say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was a big bang, and there was light?

Would you argue that the imaginary made up Spirit of God did not spend a very very long time creating the heavens before then creating the earth about 14 billion years ago?

But of course you wouldn't. After all, you are a deist, you claim, so Theo could not have caused the universe into existence because your first causer Deo cause it!

You can imagine ax grinding your tea as much as you want, deep, that is your prerogative. it bothers nor concerns me not.

budaatum:
You are very wrong! Though there is absolutely no reason to start from negative infinity when one can start at 0 minus 1. Or can you not subtract 1 from zero?

The universe as known has been dated to have begun about 14 billion years ago at time zero, and saying there was no time before 14 billion years ago is like claiming the universe was spontaneously caused into existence at point zero and here we are 14 billion years later. You however can not make such a claim, but insist there must have been a causer of the universe. And by your own argument, is it not logical to presume that your causer must have existed before 14 billion years ago in order to cause the universe into existence 14 billion years ago?

In fact, whose to say your causer did not itself exist 14 billion years or even for "eternity" before it began causing and before the universe itself came into existence 14 billion years later? Whose even to say that there was no creator of the causer who existed 140 billions years before your causer was caused, if we want to make things up to believe?

An agnostic and an atheist would say, we do not know what might have existed and for how long it existed prior to the universe coming into existence, but that's not your position. Instead, deist you inserts a timeless imaginary immaterial entity at some point where your knowledge stops and you call that point "negative infinity".

Point is, negative infinity is rather pointless as far as the supposed 14 billion year old universe is concerned. You yourself are limiting yourself to the day or even second before the universe came into existence when you invoke a causer of the universe, which is just another word for god or an intelligent designer, whom you claim is immaterial and timeless, which I presume means it 'existed' for an infinite amount of time before it began causing. And you can not engage with the notion that while something big may have existed before the universe banged into existence, since something has to exist to go bang, it is not necessarily a (creator) causer. Then you confuse your own argument by appealing to an imaginary causer that you claim must have existed before the universe existed, and you call it a first causer while denying it is a creator god, lol, when it can easily just have been an increase in pressure or whatnot.

Do you not see that your claim is no different to that made by Christians when they say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was a big bang, and there was light?

Would you argue that the imaginary made up Spirit of God did not spend a very very long time creating the heavens before then creating the earth about 14 billion years ago?

But of course you wouldn't. After all, you are a deist, you claim, so Theo could not have caused the universe into existence because your first causer Deo cause it!

You can imagine ax grinding your tea as much as you want, deep, that is your prerogative. it bothers nor concerns me not.

+
I only looked at a few opening lines of paragraphs here because I cant see the point in this discussion or devoting time and energy to it. I also believe you have become emotional about it. I will only point out that you were the one defending the possibility of an infinite regress and I am the one saying it is impossible. That suffices to collapse all that you are saying. An infinite regress remains impossible in a causal chain because if it were the case, "today" would not exist, "now" would not exist. This is iron clad logic like I said, and no amount of grammar can wish it away. Good morning.

Your opposition to your own infinite regress argument began with the idea that everything must have a cause.

There is the universe. There is your causer of the universe. And by your own premise, there must therefore be a creator of your causer. And that creator of your causer must have a creator of its own.

Note that's no where near infinity of creators and just three levels deep.

You are not the only one on Nairaland, Deep. Others read what you don't.

DeepSight:
+
I only looked at a few opening lines of paragraphs here because I cant see the point in this discussion or devoting time and energy to it. I also believe you have become emotional about it. I will only point out that you were the one defending the possibility of an infinite regress and I am the one saying it is impossible. That suffices to collapse all that you are saying. An infinite regress remains impossible in a causal chain because if it were the case, "today" would not exist, "now" would not exist. This is iron clad logic like I said, and no amount of grammar can wish it away. Good morning.

SpencerForbes:
Budaatum is deepsight and deepsight is budaatum🤔 I’m convinced…..

Negative

budaatum:
I can not imagine why anyone would think one would create a thread with one monicker to question oneself with their other moniker.

It is a mind that want to be fooled easily

budaatum:
Sorry SpencerForbes, but I must confess that this is the first thread I've come across created by Deepsight with budaatum in the topic. I went through the 223 topics created by Deepsight and could not find a single one referencing budaatum'.

I'd appreciate if you direct me to the ones you've "lost count of how many times you’ve created this exact same thread", please.

There are so many not familiar with the Budaatum and Deepsight.

SpencerForbes:
Another moniker has arrived. Very quick to produce links😂😂😂 another classic move. I’ll leave the thread now, it’s not worth my time but I’m watching 😏

Oga rest. You don't know these guys

SpencerForbes:
I’m just here monitoring the movement, and I can bet my last kobo that the three of you can’t post at the exact same minute. At most, you’ll try to juggle two handles before the 'format' breaks. 😂

Now, let’s go to the main matter: Is this a forced marketing for your Rosáy tradition or are you trying to sell a new religion to Nigerians by fire by force? 🤨

I’m already waiting for you to login to the Trip moniker to come and defend this low-budget acting. Oya, over to you!

Make we enjoy the interview abeg

budaatum:
I wouldn't mind you joining. Just bring a brain please, and use it.



Life is not tough for me at all, ono. Nor did Jesus ask me to submit to him. He actually asked that I seek the understanding he had so that I too may become a God like him, but it seems you would rather be submissive, which is your choice and not mine.

Here's a thread that might interest you more.

Budaatum kenan

achorladey:
There are so many not familiar with the Budaatum and Deepsight.

From the little digging I've done, I've realized budaatum is simply a Nigerian lady who craves covert attention but avoids the typical 'popular' label. It isn’t a confusion of character; she just prefers her fame on the subtle side. I wouldn’t call it a personality contradiction; she simply enjoys the spotlight as long as it isn't too bright. She’s different and clearly enjoys being low-key yet noticed.

achorladey:
Oga rest. You don't know these guys

I’m guessing you live with them right, PA🤔

achorladey:
Make we enjoy the interview abeg

You want to resurrect a dead thread😂 create another, I’ve polluted this one 😂

triplechoice:
Oh! .A Sherlock Holmes has come to Nairaland!

So you think I am Budaatum, and also Deepsight? That is genuinely amusing. You need to be corrected before your imagination runs completely wild..

A person's writing style is like their voice, unique and impossible to replicate exactly across different moniker.. The science backs this. Go through my post history and then compare it to Budaatum's and Deepsight's.. The differences are stark and obvious

Some persons on this forum know me personally. They know where I live and work in Nigeria. They've also met me offline. Budaatum is an elderly person known to live in the UK. Deepsight has been around for years but I don't know his location

Your accusation that we are the same person suggests that you are familiar with running multiple handles. That is your own habit, not mine. Do not project your tactics onto me.

Next time do your homework before making wild allegations.

Sweet response

SpencerForbes:
I’ve definitely found the first layer. I’m hoping to uncover something deeper 🤔 I just want to bookmark this. But other evidences will fall in place and I’ll understand the main aim.

[b][/b]

You are entangled already

DeepSight:
+

Joker

Exactly

budaatum:
This thread was definitely created because of very relevant and important you, SpencerForbes. The op was thinking, "let me go and distract SpencerForbes from whatever SpencerForbes is doing. And I shall use buda because buda distracts SpencerForbes the most and it will give buda more clout to chase.

His own gun turned against him

KobolanderSegun:
Anyone who thinks they can over shine Jesus Christ is living in a delusion. Anyone who thinks they are smarter than Jesus Christ will live in oblivion.

When you consider all the " Great " thinkers were are they now ? Where are Socrates, Plato and the rest ? Despite my Non Conformist ways I give Jesus Christ his due because that is truly the Greatest Thinker there ever was and ever will be.

Jesus Christ taught simple Advanced Science so when I see a so called scientist not acknowledge Jesus I know that they don't know science well enough.

When I see a Thinker discredit Jesus I know that person has not thought hard enough.

It's simple it's like playing football and you say " Victor Osimhen is not a good footballer " it means one of two things 1. You have never watched football or 2. You have never seen Victor Osimhen play football.

There is No One smarter than Jesus Christ. A man that died 2,025 years ago and people sing his praises on Sunday Globally.

Me that has not been to a Church in 25 years sings his praise at home and on This Forum.

A man that the Romans changed the Global Calendar based on His Birthday. The Romans where the World Power at the Time and they bowed to his Teachings. They never thought highly of people from the middle east but they thought extremely highly of Him

Interesting

KobolanderSegun:
Iv done everything you have done, and I have thought everything you have ever thought

I call this outright falsehood

DeepSight:
+
They are elevated teachings which lead to peace of spirit and equanimity of mind.

However I don't accept "turn the other cheek" which I regard as dangerous.

Loooool regarding turning the other cheek