₦airaland Forum

voodoo85:
darling i can read and see properly so theres no need to high light my nickname. well good for u nobody ever asked u to be worried about us.

Lol, what are brothers and sisters for stop beefing me

.

voodoo85:
please unfollow me. u don't belong there

Hehehe..dont press your luck my dear!

Maamin:
My network is very bad this night. Pls! Bare with me

No problem my friend.

You must be able to give a clear account of a primordial universe. A skyscraper does not appear out of the blue going by scientific logic.

That is the point...the primordial universe being a 0-dimensional singularity is not understood by classical eucladian geometry.

No! A vacuum is void of any form of matter..how then do you arrive at it being prone to quantum fluctuations ? Remember a quantum is the smallest quantity of energy and energy can be measured even as weak as a photon.

A vacuum is indeed devoid of anything(that is why it is termed "nothing" by astrophysicists)...
Vacuums contain vacuum energy....of which are prone to quantum flunctuations..
It is the vacuum energy that possess quantum fluctuations...hence virtual particles pop in and out of existence.

And you've not really giving me something meaningful about a matter states of nothingness. even Isolation from the outside world still implies containment of that entity within something.

The mundane "nothingless" you believe cannot be demonstrated to be the factual state of the universe at any point in the 13.8 billion year history of the universe...if you object to this.. can you provide a point in time when "nothing" in the classical sense existed?

A primordial universe still possess space and time period..according to your logic space and time was the result of big bang..how then you are telling me space and time is a prerequisite of location..if this merely came to be during the explosion?

I terming it a primordial universe for easy understanding(hence I used brackets when talking of the singularity to cite it as a primordial universe)...the singularity(primordial universe) is virtually a 0-dimensional state of pure fundamentals of existence..
space and time do not exist at a 0-dimensional plane(hence I noted this as an infinite regress that requires a new non-eucladian geometric conjecture)

A primordial universe must be somewhere in time..and yes a north of the north pole is possible..that is why we have something call True North in a celestial sphere

True north is a geographical direction towards the north pole....
There are four north poles. The terrestrial North Pole is a fixed geographic point that’s diametrically opposed to the terrestrial South Pole on our planet’s axis of rotation; it’s the top of the spinning top that’s Earth.
I am asking...if you can point to a north of a diametrically opposed north pole.

Have you heard of the fourth dimension? May be you should start from there.

And of what relevance is the fourth dimension when you haven't understood a 0-dimensional singularity as infinitely regressed?

Maamin:
Hehehe..dont press your luck my dear!

don't threat me because u r noone

Maamin:
Lol, what are brothers and sisters for stop beefing me

u r no brother to me

davien:
No problem my friend.
That is the point...the primordial universe being a 0-dimensional singularity is not understood by classical eucladian geometry.
A vacuum is indeed devoid of anything(that is why it is termed "nothing" by astrophysicists)...
Vacuums contain vacuum energy....of which are prone to quantum flunctuations..
It is the vacuum energy that possess quantum fluctuations...hence virtual particles pop in and out of existence.
The mundane "nothingless" you believe cannot be demonstrated to be the factual state of the universe at any point in the 13.8 billion year history of the universe...if you object to this.. can you provide a point in time when "nothing" in the classical sense existed?
I terming it a primordial universe for easy understanding(hence I used brackets when talking of the singularity to cite it as a primordial universe)...the singularity(primordial universe) is virtually a 0-dimensional state of pure fundamentals of existence..
space and time do not exist at a 0-dimensional plane(hence I noted this as an infinite regress that requires a new non-eucladian geometric conjecture)
True north is a geographical direction towards the north pole....
There are four north poles. The terrestrial North Pole is a fixed geographic point that’s diametrically opposed to the terrestrial South Pole on our planet’s axis of rotation; it’s the top of the spinning top that’s Earth.
I am asking...if you can point to a north of a diametrically opposed north poles.
And of what relevance is the fourth dimension when you haven't understood a 0-dimensional singularity as infinitely regressed?

hahaha love your signature

voodoo85:
hahaha love your signature

It's the easiest slap on christianity anyone can give..."

davien:
It's the easiest slap on christianity anyone can give..."

easy said. but basically its very true. world is the way it is because bible said so and no further explanations needed not only christianity, islam as well.

voodoo85:
u r no brother to me

But you called me darling

voodoo85:
don't threat me because u r noone

I can not threat you because you are NO ONE either

Maamin:
But you called me darling

its called sarcasm

Maamin:
I can not threat you because you are NO ONE either

ok

davien:
No problem my friend.
That is the point...the primordial universe being a 0-dimensional singularity is not understood by classical eucladian geometry.
A vacuum is indeed devoid of anything(that is why it is termed "nothing" by astrophysicists)...
Vacuums contain vacuum energy....of which are prone to quantum flunctuations..
It is the vacuum energy that possess quantum fluctuations...hence virtual particles pop in and out of existence.
The mundane "nothingless" you believe cannot be demonstrated to be the factual state of the universe at any point in the 13.8 billion year history of the universe...if you object to this.. can you provide a point in time when "nothing" in the classical sense existed?
I terming it a primordial universe for easy understanding(hence I used brackets when talking of the singularity to cite it as a primordial universe)...the singularity(primordial universe) is virtually a 0-dimensional state of pure fundamentals of existence..
space and time do not exist at a 0-dimensional plane(hence I noted this as an infinite regress that requires a new non-eucladian geometric conjecture)
True north is a geographical direction towards the north pole....
There are four north poles. The terrestrial North Pole is a fixed geographic point that’s diametrically opposed to the terrestrial South Pole on our planet’s axis of rotation; it’s the top of the spinning top that’s Earth.
I am asking...if you can point to a north of a diametrically opposed north pole.
And of what relevance is the fourth dimension when you haven't understood a 0-dimensional singularity as infinitely regressed?

Enough already with the primordial universe which you cant explain...eucledian geometry has two fundamental type of measurement..which do you choose to use here? True north was supposed to be a clue for you but you digressed am going to leave it at that..so you think over 50 billion galaxies popped out of a 0-dimensional.."take not of the 0-dimension" singularity ... u are the one that believed in a 13.8 billion years old universe which is in contradiction with your 0-dimensional infinite singularity..you should provide me with a point in time where nothing exist,

You will end up telling me the whole thing poofed out of that nothing..i guess!

shadowgwalker:
I can't read well, please help me.

Receive Grace & Strength IJN

Try again, I am sure you will be able to read we well now. LOL

Maamin:
Enough already with the primordial universe which you cant explain...eucledian geometry has two fundamental type of measurement..which do you choose to use here? True north was supposed to be a clue for you but you digressed am going to leave it at that..so you think over 50 billion galaxies popped out o a 0-dimensional singularity ... u are the one that believed in a 13.8 billion old universe which is in contradiction with your 0-dimensional infinite singularity..you should provide me with a point in time where nothing exist,

lol you figured it out that the classical definition of "nothing" doesn't exist like you were looking for...so now you point back the question.
Like i've already pointed out...a vacuum is the closest thing to a "nothing"...and even that contains vacuum energy that possess quantum fluctuations allowing virtual particles to exist or cease to.

You will end up telling me the whole thing poofed out of that nothing..i guess!

Can you give me an example of a "nothing" that the bible "god" used?

asalimpo:
your post is so long tht wen i quoted it, i vanished from my phone screen? Bros, learn how to summarise.

Noted.

My govt has set up a committee to look into your observations. Thank you for your observations, it is well appreciated.

voodoo85:
oh i can't believe how stupiddd u r. every 40 seconds 1 person commits suicide. so u r telling me they r all islamists?

yes!!it's their tradition, the rest that follow are wanna -be or psychos and stupid ...just like you. I can't explain more cos you will discover your inner-might and do that too.

voodoo85:
i knew u r fuccking al qaeda. people look at her profile. u must be very stupidd. people killing themselves everyday not because of the islamist nonsense. those who kills themselves for meeting virgins r maybe jst 2% of all suicidal rates mumu . please don't comment nonsense anymore

bloody illiterate, you are a complete definition of mumu. see your own fake profile, I can imagine how many people you've duped life out of . I'm sure you've contemplated killing yourself someday but don't worry you have your own classification, it's called 'a failed destiny '.

Emmalot121:
If God did not create the universe, explain the existence of magic.

magic was introduced to man by the fallen angels, the fallen angels were once God's special workforce. it's also an evidence God created the universe.
anybody that tries to prove God's non-existence is doing so at his risk, they will start explain life evolves and evolves and evolves bla bla bla, but why can't the evolution continue now. and even as they trace it back why won't these so-called intelligent guys accept the fact that 'that little spark that started the life is as a result of the word of God been made physical '?

shadowgwalker:
magic was introduced to man by the fallen angels, the fallen angels were once God's special workforce. it's also an evidence God created the universe.
anybody that tries to prove God's non-existence is doing so at his risk, they will start explain life evolves and evolves and evolves bla bla bla, but why can't the evolution continue now. and even as they trace it back why won't these so-called intelligent guys accept the fact that 'that little spark that started the life is as a result of the word of God been made physical '?

where did "god" come from?
And what spark made "god" metaphysical?

HerexG:
There are no facts in the link you shared, they are just speculations, give me the exact chapter let's buttress it here

Wait, lemme call Moses.

Emmalot121:
Wait, lemme call Moses.

I'm sure Moses will be too busy to answer your call, he should be flexing with all the fine fine Angels over there

shadowgwalker:
magic was introduced to man by the fallen angels, the fallen angels were once God's special workforce. it's also an evidence God created the universe.
anybody that tries to prove God's non-existence is doing so at his risk, they will start explain life evolves and evolves and evolves bla bla bla, but why can't the evolution continue now. and even as they trace it back why won't these so-called intelligent guys accept the fact that 'that little spark that started the life is as a result of the word of God been made physical '?

lmaoo I do believe in God but common on bro, really?

davien:
where did "god" come from?
And what spark made "god" metaphysical?

God by definition is the uncaused caused, an infinite regression of causes is illogical

HerexG:
I'm sure Moses will be too busy to answer your call, he should be flexing with all the fine fine Angels over there

I've you read my proof of God, what do you think of it? If God doesn't exist, whrence did magic come?

shadowgwalker:
magic was introduced to man by the fallen angels, the fallen angels were once God's special workforce. it's also an evidence God created the universe.
anybody that tries to prove God's non-existence is doing so at his risk, they will start explain life evolves and evolves and evolves bla bla bla, but why can't the evolution continue now. and even as they trace it back why won't these so-called intelligent guys accept the fact that 'that little spark that started the life is as a result of the word of God been made physical '?

That's why bible called them fools. Check out my proof of God https://www.nairaland.com/2010775/absolute-proof-gods-existence

tevinsolt:
God by definition is the uncaused caused, an infinite regression of causes is illogical

There is nothing like 'infinite regression of causes' If you slice your yam, it won't slice to infinity, you will definitely get to its atom. The atom contains three major subatomic particles, so does God, Trinity.

Emmalot121:
There is nothing like 'infinite regression of causes' If you slice your yam, it won't slice to infinity, you will definitely get to its atom. The atom contains three major subatomic particles, so does God, Trinity.

I believe you just repeated what i said? but pls stop liking God to an atom, because Atom is so much more than three "major" subatomic particles.

tevinsolt:
God by definition is the uncaused caused, an infinite regression of causes is illogical

So to stop "god" from being illogical due to infinite regression..its an "uncaused cause"?

UyiIredia:
God isn't absent. The existence of God is factual. However I have learnt that atheism isn't based on facts but poor thinking.

How is the existence of God factual?

tevinsolt:
I believe you just repeated what i said? but pls stop liking God to an atom, because Atom is so much more than three "major" subatomic particles.

So does God. We have the 7 spirits of God but the Trinity is the dominant , so is proton neutron and electron. Not trying to equate God with atom but explaining him through atom.