₦airaland Forum

Tohzara:
What is the point of this statement and what does it change? Is the one who designed the website a part of the website or inside it?

What the fücking hell is this? On what basis does anyone arrive at the conclusion that he couldn't have been created because he created an extremely complex universe? How does that follow?

Cutting my comment at the wrong point brought your confusion obviously. Read it through again.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

I knew you wouldn't! Complexity only brings more complexity and since complexity cannot be measured beyond a point because for something to be measured you need something equipped for that to do so and since nothing can evolve to match the exponential "infinite regress" you allude then both cannot run parallel to each other. This in essence cancels itself out so infinite regress on science does not exist and is alien to it.

WHAT DID SCIENCE SAY CAUSED THE BIG BANG, butterflyl1on?

Research about the big bang and dark energy with reference to quantum fluctuations and be enlightened.

Incomprehensible and unintelligible.

Science cannot prove the existence of an immaterial, non-physical entity, because it's founded upon materialism and empiricism. If the whole of reality is physical and material, amenable to scientific study, then your God does not exist.

Science can neither prove nor disprove God.

Do you know the definition of faith?

My reference to vaxx should have made you realise I wasn't referring to religious faith.

I was throwing up assumptions to show you that I have alternatives to all your unproven and unprovable fantasies.

[quote]Where did I make this claim?

Science cannot call it an impossibility if it cannot or has not observed it. "Science doesn't know yet" is different from "science says it is impossible

Science cannot and I repeat cannot observe any universe outside our own. For this to be possible then our universe has to also align with this other universe or other universes so they can interact or interfere with each other and that would be the only way we in our universe can observe any other universe and since this hypothesis cannot occur then scientifically ANY OTHER UNIVERSE OTHER THAN OUR OWN DOES NOT EXIST. When you countered my words with an assumption about other universes based on your scientifically faulty logic that was when you made the claim.

2) What is "NOTHING"? Define "NOTHING".

Nothing is what it is. Nothing is nothing. It has no semblance of something. Your mind cannot imagine nothing to be something. Nothing is blank, zero, empty, not anything, no single thing.

Your claims also have no scientific backing, so what rubbish are you saying?
Moreover, science isn't infallible.



The universe is mindless but purpose driven. Just like a human being is mindless but purpose driven. Because mindless things can be teleological. Even butterflies are mindless but purpose driven.

This is the definition of mind. So calling man mindless is absurd.

mind
noun
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.
a person's attention.

Man is not mindless. The universe is mindless but purpose driven. Something is driving its purpose. Something more powerful than it is which is why it is unable to stop its actions.

Ronpet777:
Now tell, me from u conjectures and analysis, isn't it obvious that ur existence is purposeless and simply an accident or nature?Y then do u criticize religious folks who at least find peace in their belief and see life from a very optimistic point of view ?? Ur analysis is very clouded and random, devoid of any credibility.
My point is this, as an atheist, u cant provide an answer to d question yet trouble those with complete belief in their answer.

My basis of my existence isn't to worship a non-existant being forever. It's to advance myself and leave a legacy behind.

budaatum:
O lo lu fẹ ẹ mi atata. O tọ'jọ meta. Ni bo lo lọ ti a ko fi ri ọ? K'abọ.

My Yuroba is not good, but here goes. Lati ohun ti mo ri pe o nkọ awọn alaigbagbọ lati jẹ otitọ awọn ti n wa dipo awọn apanirun otitọ. Kú isé.

vaxx:
The issue with you as a person is your ability to accept we have individual differences, and if that is not the case we will not be having a forum like this. your inability to tolerate each individual difference keep you thinking you are enlightened,of which the reverse is the case. but when evidence is thrown at your face, you rather turn it to insult, instead of you to just learn and see maybe you can even make sense from the nonsense your presume unenlightened folks is saying. guy learn to be cautious, it will not take a drop from your self hyped wisdom

Yes I see his insults. This dude is insulting Theists while he lamely argues corrupt pseudo science with maybe's, it might be etc.

Tohzara is making a real fool of himself pretending to impress Se.un. Examine the bolded red in his pseudo scientific ramblings

1) "The universe created at the Big Bang might just be the transformation of..........."

2) "The universe might have MIND FUNDAMENTAL TO IT."

He certainly comes across as a joker !!

ScienceWatch:
Yes, long time no see. I will never use a hammer on you BudaAtum. I trust all is well with you. From what i see you are educating Atheists to be truth seekers instead of truth destroyers. Well done.

Not just atheists, and not that I, teach. All of us must seek the truth and destroyeth it not. Brings up what one wise person once asked though. What is the truth?

See! You ain't been back already, screwing my head!!

Welcome back ScienceWatch. You were missed!

budaatum:
Not just atheists, and not that I, teach. All of us must seek the truth and destroyeth it not. Brings up what one wise person once asked though. What is the truth?

See! You ain't been back already, screwing my head!!

Welcome back ScienceWatch. You were missed!

It is good to see you too !!!!
Now you are screwing my head too, when you ask "What is truth."

Tohzara:
The universe that originated at the Big Bang is not necessarily the entire universe. It might be a transformation of preexisting energy----energy of an entirely different form, that has always existed.

The transformations might not be eternal, but the energy being transformed has always existed and will always exist. That's the point.

Per the bolded...perhaps, the universe is the subset of the multiverse (which is infinite).

The Universe that resulted from the big bang as its starting point...(that's if the big bang theory is still accepted as the origin of the Universe) therefore tells you that the Universe was created...either by accident (which I don't believe) OR by a program (which we cannot fully grasp and understand)

budaatum:
Not just atheists, and not that I, teach. All of us must seek the truth and destroyeth it not. Brings up what one wise person once asked though. What is the truth?

See! You ain't been back already, screwing my head!!

Welcome back ScienceWatch. You were missed!

You will remember that the cruel Pontius Pilate asked Jesus the same question. "What is truth."

vaxx:
ok i will....since we all have different perspective , science work with axioms which aid in experimental of data and logical deduction . these axioms can not be prove and without it science will be meaningless...

Do you perhaps mean, science of the philosophical sort, the speculations of science, "can not be proved"?

Or science as applied, the modifying type that I use to express my undying love for ScienceWatch wherever in the world he is, "can not be proved"?

Do understand that it is the axioms from the speculative sort that on testing and found to be so, as in proven to be as speculated, that form technology. And those that are proven not to work are abandoned?

vaxx:
If you a lover of Scientific procedure and you do not understand how all scientific findings rest on a foundation of unprovable assumptions, the axioms, then there is a big gap in your basic understanding of how Science works. the starting point of science investigation is rested on assumptions.... there is a coined name for it . it is called hypothesis.

Then there is a big gap in my understanding. Which I would like you to help me fill.

Science, as I know it, is not built on "unprovable assumptions". If anyone came up with an assumption and claims it has anything to do with science, all the other scientists will by nature all scream, "Prove it", or they would not give you the time of day. They will then check your evidence using methods that scientist have agreed to use check such assumption to see if your assumption is true, possible, or false. They will then discard the outright false, work on the possible, and use the true in advancing technology.

vaxx:
This assumptions is rested on two gigantic faith principle... it goes thus

1 Principle of intelligibility (that secrets of nature can be unlocked by human mind).

2 Principle of objectification. (that all of human experience can be objectified).

so whenever uncertain principle are discover , science suffer a major blow..... for example why is big bang not repeatable, why does it happen once. instead of continues time and so on

You can read further from here ......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F

I do not know science to claim it knows everything about nature, or that all human behaviour can be objectified. In fact, science as I know it, would tell you there is a lot we don't know, and a lot more that we might never know, and that one can't completely know another humans subjective.

Sorry. This is not some wiki stuff. We have identified it suffers from subjective bias, and I've already fallen for that recently. Ask Ronpett777.

Oderibah:
I repeat u are wasting ur time seun himself said dere is no penalty if u don’t post vin but u are here carrying d matter on ur crooked head as if Na u get d site meanwhile seun is aware of everything happening on his website he doesn’t need ur help if he needed ur help he for make u moderator on autos section which will be ur dream come true

I pray that god considers making him a moderator. Ami

Please ZirdoRoray, answer anybody you want and don't let anyone bully you. The Creator of Nairaland used technology to create a platform to enable you to use your voice. Those who don't like it should shut their eye so they can't see you! Welcome to the conversation.

ZirdoRoray:
It was a mistake. I wanted to reply another post. Global warming is a thing of the past. As at late last year, continued declines in ozone depleting emissions are expected to result in a near complete recovery of the ozone layer near themiddle of the 21st century. The long time scale for this recovery is due to the slow rate at which ODS are removed from the atmosphere by natural processes. More so the ozone repletion project is on.
Read extensively and you will see that scientists donot expect a successfull colonization of mars any time soon instead the idea will birth more advanced technology to raise the standard of living at result of trying to conquer world with harsh environmental onditions.

Wow, this thread is still going!

*insert Jeopardy theme here*

Budaatum take up the gauntlet thrown at Gameknot

Ronpet777:
Wot u term save, is a very subjective term, because death can be bad and yet a blessing. God doesn't see death d way u see it. Death is birth for a true believer but torment for a God hater. Tell me y u reject God. When all he commands us is d display of love, kindness, humility, forgiveness, generosity.

My ordinary Surgeon at Lewisham Hospital could not sleep when I was unable to walk. You would think I was her child, the way she was always there even coming to check up on me at 3am in the morning and every 3 months for the past 2 years. Seems like she cares more than that which you describe above! Maybe god should consider how it sees me?!

budaatum:
Do you perhaps mean, science of the philosophical sort, the speculations of science, "can not be proved"?

Or science as applied, the modifying type that I use to express my undying love for ScienceWatch wherever in the world he is, "can not be proved"?

Do understand that it is the axioms from the speculative sort that on testing and found to be so, as in proven to be as speculated, that form technology. And those that are proven not to work are abandoned?


Then there is a big gap in my understanding. Which I would like you to help me fill.

Science, as I know it, is not built on "unprovable assumptions". If anyone came up with an assumption and claims it has anything to do with science, all the other scientists will by nature all scream, "Prove it", or they would not give you the time of day. They will then check your evidence using methods that scientist have agreed to use check such assumption to see if your assumption is true, possible, or false. They will then discard the outright false, work on the possible, and use the true in advancing technology.


I do not know science to claim it knows everything about nature, or that all human behaviour can be objectified. In fact, science as I know it, would tell you there is a lot we don't know, and a lot more that we might never know, and that one can't completely know another humans subjective.

Sorry. This is not some wiki stuff. We have identified it suffers from subjective bias, and I've already fallen for that recently. Ask Ronpett777.

Lol, I think it is the modified type. ROTFL your love knows no bounds.

OkCornel:
Per the bolded...perhaps, the universe is the subset of the multiverse (which is infinite).

The Universe that resulted from the big bang as its starting point...(that's if the big bang theory is still accepted as the origin of the Universe) therefore tells you that the Universe was created...either by accident (which I don't believe) OR by a program (which we cannot fully grasp and understand)

i suggest the theory should be change to evolution of the universe instead of the big bang why? The big bang theory doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. and likewise the laws of science break down as we approach the creation of the universe because it has no empirical evidence to rest upon....and this is the same reason quantum equation prediction on the universe being eternal is not grounded objectively in the physicist community. both evidence to me are conflating......

MuttleyLaff:
Budaatum take up the gauntlet thrown at Gameknot

Which gauntlet? Me no see it!

vaxx:
i suggest the theory should be change to evolution of the universe instead of the big bang why? The big bang theory doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. and likewise the laws of science break down as we approach the creation of the universe because it has no empirical evidence to rest upon....and this is the same reason quantum equation prediction on the universe being eternal is not grounded objectively in the physicist community. both evidence to me are conflating......

Sound perspective... evolution of the universe...

Another thing to be researched on... gotta put this on my to-do list...

Thanks for this insight...

budaatum:
Which gauntlet? Me no see it!

Let's have a quick game now
Invite xxxxxxxxx, as your setting declined invites from me

ScienceWatch:
Lol, I think it is the modified type. ROTFL your love knows no bounds.

Don't mind vaxx. He saw me using proven science to cry my eyes out when you were away, now he wants to claim my love is fake!

Just can't trust some people eh!

Eh, you all no be tired abi? It's late there in Naija

MuttleyLaff:
Let's have a quick game now
Invite WheezingLaff, as your setting declined invites from me

Yeah, I'm set not to accept challenges from people with less than a certain number of games.

On garde! And good luck.

vaxx:
i suggest the theory should be change to evolution of the universe instead of the big bang why? The big bang theory doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. and likewise the laws of science break down as we approach the creation of the universe because it has no empirical evidence to rest upon....and this is the same reason quantum equation prediction on the universe being eternal is not grounded objectively in the physicist community. both evidence to me are conflating......

I'm in support.

budaatum:
Do you perhaps mean, science of the philosophical sort, the speculations of science, "can not be proved"?

Or science as applied, the modifying type that I use to express my undying love for ScienceWatch wherever in the world he is, "can not be proved"?

Do understand that it is the axioms from the speculative sort that on testing and found to be so, as in proven to be as speculated, that form technology. And those that are proven not to work are abandoned?


Then there is a big gap in my understanding. Which I would like you to help me fill.

Science, as I know it, is not built on "unprovable assumptions". If anyone came up with an assumption and claims it has anything to do with science, all the other scientists will by nature all scream, "Prove it", or they would not give you the time of day. They will then check your evidence using methods that scientist have agreed to use check such assumption to see if your assumption is true, possible, or false. They will then discard the outright false, work on the possible, and use the true in advancing technology.


I do not know science to claim it knows everything about nature, or that all human behaviour can be objectified. In fact, science as I know it, would tell you there is a lot we don't know, and a lot more that we might never know, and that one can't completely know another humans subjective.

Sorry. This is not some wiki stuff. We have identified it suffers from subjective bias, and I've already fallen for that recently. Ask Ronpett777.

lol so you accept wiki is not an evidence now, all because i counter it when an atheist use it against cnspedia. shenekah, wetin man know go see for nairaland....

science rely heavily on axioms, please do me a favor to learn here....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom. i can not know more than wiki...

Technology concept is first developed in thought and then translate to physical evidence .... if you must lean the way i build it , let follows this pattern of axioms we will arrive at the answer. thought is the most wonderful tools to technology not its design..... its design can be copy ,reproduce and even fake..... but the thought needs no science evidence to function.....just your natural given mind

The gap you are having is what i am already feeling here..

if you assume science is not base on unproven assumption without given me fact is it not a defeating in disguise on your part. at least i provide evidence to buttress mine.... let me ask you , how can you proof the abstract mathematics formula, how is it invented? ..... science work with presuppose formula at hands , how can you proof them? please try and read about the axioms?

that is why i told you last time that science is a tools just like hammer, it is good for some work and it is not quite well with others.

if you are not reading the wiki reference, i provide, i will assume you are not interested in the reality... at least the page explain much better than i do....

Ishilove:
He can kiss my fuzzy black ass wherever he is

Oh lawwwd!!!!.

Ronpet777:
Guy, U need to knw that we only argue here to explain one another's stand and not to mock. Arguing from now to tomorrow won't make anyone change his belief, learning takes place as we find things out abt one another. So, try and be more reasonable pls. It is pple like u dt make one get d notion that all Atheists r dumb.

Look at his moniker. Lucifer wants to insult you to anger, thereby sinning against your God.

Ignore the kid.

Ronpet777:
Wot has that to do with d argument in d first place?

I think I told you about my headache while reading your shiits My headache necessitate's the need to quote you

But instead of you to modify you're busy advertising your illiteracy all through the thread

By d way, can anyone respond with d speed with which we type without inadvertently making errors?

It's more than a train speed especially when you forgot to make use of your brain each time your making an unreasonable and flawed assertions

I don't consider this an argument again, I consider this a big attack on my person.

Sir I don't argue am only here to learn

You could see that on my signature

bennyann:
I can't believe à time will come when you an atheist will sound so unintelligent to me. Really, the thread doesn't make sense but what baffles me is that it doesn't prove the intelligence you claim you solely possess. How else can you describe one that doesn't sound intelligent in a seemingly senseless thread. If I can't perceive your intelligence on a senseless thread, then I should question myself for ever thinking you were one. If you're behaving like this over a human being, then imagine how you would have represented God. Na wa o.

I'm wondering where I SUPPORTED nairaland owner doesn't exist apart from implying the same measure you give is what you're getting.

If Christians start threatening you with the powers of their God, your tears and scream will be everywhere. Isn't it amazing how you've been served your own coin? And it's not even over a spirit but a fellow human...

See the way you express how to prove a human being exist..
See dear, Calling for a ban proves nairaland exist and anything, anyone or any moniker carry out the ban. Even if I'm banned now, it can be a coincidence or just by an antispambot as usual. How does that prove the particular human we're talking about exist? Take that to court and find out if you'd win.

Whether everything here seems senseless to you or not, it is an undeniable fact you've been found where wanted. I repeat the table has been turned.

But you know what? I'm highly disappointed in you. You've always been above my level but for how you've quoted me thus far, you've gone way below my level and I can't really reply you here anymore.

I've learnt something here: when you feel anything is senseless, there's actually a sense in it but we need humility and insight for that sense to be revealed. The "intelligent" can get drowned easily in a pool of senselessness.

If you can't make a human with principles and self imposed decision techniques do whatever you want him to do, why Castigating the God idea over the same issue? It's their choice, it's their principles and they can decide to favour you if you win their heart or if they just simply decide to. If no one gets that simple message then I know not any simplest way to break it down.

We've really exchanged shoes.

My little sister is growing up. Make una no spoil my sister o. Na dis generation i use get hope.

When i came in newly to NL, i was almost crying every day. Then i ignorantly allowed them to rule me by always making me angry and fighting with words i never imagined i could speak out. Gradually, i overcame that.
Now, i just laugh and pass. When we are done here, satan shall receive his Just Recompense of reward.

Dear all, please take note.

Thanks...

Tohzara:
I never saw it in my dream that I would be waking up to address the retardation of another lunatic this morning. Please, Mr. Idiot, by the time you reply this post, remember to tell me that I do not exist. Extraordinary morön.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.chai pipo dey o

vaxx:
lol so you accept wiki is not an evidence now, all because i counter it when an atheist use it against cnspedia. shenekah, wetin man know go see for nairaland....

You said wiki was subjective. I then found, to my chagrin, that it did not mention that a prominent writer had committed suicide! The evidence you provided was verified by objective fact so I have no choice but to adjust my thinking regarding it and have done so.

vaxx:
science rely heavily on axioms, please do me a favor to learn here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom. i can not know more than wiki...

Lol
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]

An axiom is not true, it is only taken to be true as a starting point. This is where falsifiability come in. The scientist works on the premise that a thing is so then tries to find ways to debunk the premise.

A bad scientist, on the other hand, assumes an axiom, or premise, is true, and refuses to check if it is true or not, and refuses to acknowledge or accept any evidence that contradicts the assumed premise.

vaxx:
Technology concept is first developed in thought and then translate to physical evidence ....

The axioms are first developed, by thought, in the mind. The axioms are then tested to check if they hold true. If they do hold true, they then form the basis on which a scientist may base faith on.

I think that an axiom is so. I check whether said axiom is as I think it is. if I find axiom to be as I thought axiom was, I have faith that axiom is so. And if I find axiom not to be as I assumed axiom might be, I have faith that axiomis not so. Either ways, I should keep checking axiom to solidify my faith further, including asking why I assumed axiom was so in the first place.

vaxx:
how can you proof the abstract mathematics formula, who invented them ..... science work with presuppose formula at hands , how can you proof them? please try and read about the axioms?.

Say, I want to build a bridge. I first observe where the bridge will go, check the span it would cover, the depth, width, consider the weights it will carry and how long my bridge will be in place. I then go do some mathematics (you may consider it abstract or not, if you want, but the fact that I took it from my observations mean its not exactly the bridge). My observations and mathematical formulas will inform the parameters by which my final built bridge might meet my expectations.

It is after all written, do not embark on a project without first considering the outcome. Besides, even God is said to have taken readings when it is written "His face hovered over the deep".

I read wiki. You convinced me on that one.