₦airaland Forum

Dhumancanvas:
God sounds like an insecure girl in a relationship. Those girls who get their friend to seduce their boyfriend to make sure he loves them and sure enough the poor guy usually fails to resist the temptation.
Why the need to test. Why not just enjoy the beauty created. Why even create a possibility for it to all go wrong. That's just stupid.

From my knowledge man had no knowledge of the snake amd if the snake was the devil as people suggest then even if you wanna claim man wasn't an infant. Compared to God's former righthand who lived for aeons before creation they were babies compared to the snake.

Thank you. I'll examine the reports in due time.

Yea Every one says every other church is a scam but then they have about as mucj to offer as them so you saying that doesn't surprise me. Let me guess. You'd recommend your church right? Cuz to each christian their own church is where God operates and no where else.

You’ve made your point clear and in a respectful way. I really appreciate that. I believe in evolution. It is the basis of life. You can say it’s man’s main purpose. In the same way I believe in the supreme being. Which is God. You mentioned man’s evolution from zygotes, this theory makes sense. But you never mentioned how this zygote came to be. Think about a fruit hanging from a tree. You ask the fruit about the origin. It says “ oh. I originated from This tree. This tree grew all the way from a small branch to a huge tree and it produced me.” But this fruit never makes reference to the seed planter because it knows nothing of the planter. The fruit does not understand anything other than itself and the shrubs around it. The fruit has no idea it was down for a reason. This can be a representation of what man is. Man was created by a being. A being so enormous, so intelligent no man can understand the being’s ways. The ways of the supreme being is beyond human reasoning even the smartest scientists you’ve been talking about call the beginning a Big Bang theory. Something unexplainable. But man’s ego wouldn’t want him to believe something out there is greater than he is so man comes up with theories.

Dhumancanvas:
God sounds like an insecure girl in a relationship. Those girls who get their friend to seduce their boyfriend to make sure he loves them and sure enough the poor guy usually fails to resist the temptation.
Why the need to test. Why not just enjoy the beauty created. Why even create a possibility for it to all go wrong. That's just stupid.

From my knowledge man had no knowledge of the snake amd if the snake was the devil as people suggest then even if you wanna claim man wasn't an infant. Compared to God's former righthand who lived for aeons before creation they were babies compared to the snake.

Thank you. I'll examine the reports in due time.

Yea Every one says every other church is a scam but then they have about as mucj to offer as them so you saying that doesn't surprise me. Let me guess. You'd recommend your church right? Cuz to each christian their own church is where God operates and no where else.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was not just a test, it was a means of selection of creations with a certain trait.
Is it possible to have the gift of Volition and yet be denied the opportunity of exercising it? If God wanted robots, your option would have been a great idea.

I wouldn't even recommend my church to you..cause we have our own weaknesses. I don't go to scoan, I'm not their member. I don't even endorse them but I'm willing to recommend you to scrutinize "bizarre" occurrences their. You'll find a lot on YouTube but the best is a visitation if you can.

There are many living churches especially in Nigeria. With the minority reports, don't just wave them away: they show at best that maybe our five senses are not sufficient to understanding the universe AND that demons and spiritual forces exist.

Dhumancanvas:
I disagree. A competent teacher can bring out the best in his students. Mind you this is supposed to be God. So that should go double for him. But I guess he's simply incompetent.

Lol you think that low of humanity? Thats sad.

Its interesting you mention that cuz the whole adam and eve story has ALOT of question marks. Where do I begin.
Was God not aware of the snake's presence? He's supposed to be all knowing and all present.
Why did there exist a damn fruit in the first place, in the middle of the garden of all places, and the fruit was the most attractive.
God had just created man. Man was practically an infant. He let this much older, much wiser creature manipulate his infants who really stood no chance agasint this creature.
He created paradise with a massive self destruct button in the middle and allowed a creature with evil intent to run free.
Then he gets so mad after this creature successful, so mad that he cursed the entire human race from that moment on. What a guy!

Europeans brought christianity to Africa my dear.

I don't know how the religious apologists can explain or rationalize Satan's origin. A supposedly all-knowing God, who knew the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end, created Satan, an angel in heaven. And when Satan rebelled, he cast him down to Earth, knowing fully well what Satan will do to man in the garden and spoil everything. How these religious folks tend to rationalize this is simply beyond me.

Always quick to shift the blame for evils to Satan, forgetting who created Satan and has the power to destroy Satan once and for all.

shadeyinka:
Emptiness cannot be a property of something: as in what property can we attribute to emptiness?
Mass, Volume, Charge, Length, etc. If its a property of something, quantify it.

I see what you did there, jumping from my "emptiness is a property of something", to your, "emptiness has properties". I hope you see the jump.

Emptiness is an adjective. The archaic definition of adjective is "can't stand alone". You have to add a bold noun like space to prop up emptiness, and that space is something, a measurable something at that. Unless you want to claim your space has no lenght and breadth.

When the word emptiness is used, absolutely nothing, is implied, inside of a quantifiable something, which can be measured Mrs Dawkins.

Danhumprey:
I don't know how the religious apologists can explain or rationalize Satan's origin. A supposedly all-knowing God, who knew the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end, created Satan, an angel in heaven. And when Satan rebelled, he cast him down to Earth, knowing fully well what Satan will do to man in the garden and spoil everything. How these religious folks tend to rationalize this is simply beyond me.

Always quick to shift the blame for evils to Satan, forgetting who created Satan and has the power to destroy Satan once and for all.

My Brother. Me too I don't understand.

misteradey:
You’ve made your point clear and in a respectful way. I really appreciate that. I believe in evolution. It is the basis of life. You can say it’s man’s main purpose. In the same way I believe in the supreme being. Which is God. You mentioned man’s evolution from zygotes, this theory makes sense. But you never mentioned how this zygote came to be. Think about a fruit hanging from a tree. You ask the fruit about the origin. It says “ oh. I originated from This tree. This tree grew all the way from a small branch to a huge tree and it produced me.” But this fruit never makes reference to the seed planter because it knows nothing of the planter. The fruit does not understand anything other than itself and the shrubs around it. The fruit has no idea it was down for a reason. This can be a representation of what man is. Man was created by a being. A being so enormous, so intelligent no man can understand the being’s ways. The ways of the supreme being is beyond human reasoning even the smartest scientists you’ve been talking about call the beginning a Big Bang theory. Something unexplainable. But man’s ego wouldn’t want him to believe something out there is greater than he is so man comes up with theories.

Honestly I can buy into the idea of a supreme being far greater than our understanding. But thats where I'd stop. I wouldn't go any further to try say anything about a being I don't understand. I wouldn't make any claims about his desires or plans for us, his supposed anger at us for reasons I'm not even sure or tell people how they would be punished for not believing in or worshipping him,I certainly won't go erecting monuments dedicated to worshipping this supreme being. Who says the supreme being even wants to be worshipped.

I would simple go about my life as best as I can. Pretty much exactly as I do now.

shadeyinka:
The tree of knowledge of good and evil was not just a test, it was a means of selection of creations with a certain trait.
Is it possible to have the gift of Volition and yet be denied the opportunity of exercising it? If God wanted robots, your option would have been a great idea.

I wouldn't even recommend my church to you..cause we have our own weaknesses. I don't go to scoan, I'm not their member. I don't even endorse them but I'm willing to recommend you to scrutinize "bizarre" occurrences their. You'll find a lot on YouTube but the best is a visitation if you can.

There are many living churches especially in Nigeria. With the minority reports, don't just wave them away: they show at best that maybe our five senses are not sufficient to understanding the universe AND that demons and spiritual forces exist.

A single test of volition upon which failure means a curse on man from that point till eternity. Don't you think it's a little extreme for a loving God?

I will keep my eyes open for any of these 'bizarre' occurrences. Frankly I've always been curious.

Dhumancanvas:
A single test of volition upon which failure means a curse on man from that point till eternity. Don't you think it's a little extreme for a loving God?

I will keep my eyes open for any of these 'bizarre' occurrences. Frankly I've always been curious.

Go read Exodus. I see you falling off a chair laughing.

In 2012, Sam Harris, one of the famed ‘four horsemen’ of New Atheism, published a book called Free Will, arguing that it doesn’t exist. He’s a neuroscientist, and he contends that the more science learns how our brains work, the less plausible is a self with free will. He calls them ‘illusions’. By contrast, in his 2003 book Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett, another of the horsemen, argued for a concept of free will that is “an evolved creation of human activity and beliefs” and is compatible with causal determinism. Who is right, if either of them?

Frank S. Robinson ‘chooses’ to remind ‘us’ of problems some contemporary philosophers have with these central human concepts.

Defending Free Will & The Self

budaatum:
I see what you did there, jumping from my "emptiness is a property of something", to your, "emptiness has properties". I hope you see the jump.

Emptiness is an adjective. The archaic definition of adjective is "can't stand alone". You have to add a bold noun like space to prop up emptiness, and that space is something, a measurable something at that. Unless you want to claim your space has no lenght and breadth.

When the word emptiness is used, absolutely nothing, is implied, inside of a quantifiable something, which can be measured Mrs Dawkins.

Let's start from your premises:

budaatum:
Sorry, but "science" does not say there was nothing before the big bang! If there was nothing before the big bang, there would be nothing to go bang for starts, and "empty space" is still something, a space with nothing in it.

It is the universe as we know it that a beginning is claimed for. Human knowledge just doesn't go further than that.

It started with:
Empty Space= Something

If you won't accuse me of changing meaning, it can be rephrased as
Emptiness = Something

Empty/Emptiness is an adjective or a verb
Something is a noun

Scientifically, emptiness means devoid of matter. Matter is always value noun. Emptiness is thus a description of absence of substance/thing.

It's not possible to stretch the argument beyond that and still make any sense.

Except your argument is like: "zero" means strictly "no giraffe"! Then,

Dhumancanvas:
A single test of volition upon which failure means a curse on man from that point till eternity. Don't you think it's a little extreme for a loving God?

I will keep my eyes open for any of these 'bizarre' occurrences. Frankly I've always been curious.

I think your emphasis now is on the character of God ,"loving"!
The word "loving" cannot be overstretched beyond reason.

It is understandable if God loves His own "children" unconditionally.
But can God love all His creations unconditionally?

If God is Just: He must punish wickedness!...even from His
own Children

Are all humans children of God?
The answer is a big NO!

shadeyinka:
Let's start from your premises:


It started with:
Empty Space= Something

If you won't accuse me of changing meaning, it can be rephrased as
Emptiness = Something

Empty/Emptiness is an adjective or a verb
Something is a noun

Scientifically, emptiness means devoid of matter. Matter is always value noun. Emptiness is thus a description of absence of substance/thing.

It's not possible to stretch the argument beyond that and still make any sense.

Except your argument is like: "zero" means strictly "no giraffe"! Then,

Emptiness ≠ mean something. It just implies something that is empty, as in, a thing that has no things in it.

Empty space means a space (noun) that is being described by the adjective 'empty'. The space itself is empty, i.e. has nothing in it, but there is still a space that needs to be empty. Emptiness is therfore a quality of the space that is in this case, empty, as in the space is devoid of content. The space itself however must exist for it to be empty.

Examples are, a house is empty, a cup is empty, a space is empty, my purse is empty, your head is empty etc. Something - the house, cup, space, your head, are what are empty, but the house, cup, space and your head are something in their own right and are therefore not nothing.

budaatum:
Emptiness ≠ mean something. It just implies something that is empty, as in, a thing that has no things in it.

Empty space means a space (noun) that is being described by the adjective 'empty'. The space itself is empty, i.e. has nothing in it, but there is still a space that needs to be empty. Emptiness is therfore a quality of the space that is in this case, empty, as in the space is devoid of content. The space itself however must exist for it to be empty.

Examples are, a house is empty, a cup is empty, a space is empty, my purse is empty, your head is empty etc. Something - the house, cup, space, your head, are what are empty, but the house, cup, space and your head are something in their own right and are therefore not nothing.

A space is a boundary defined by area or volume and The volume could be real or virtual. Emptiness qualifies/describes a space.

A virtual space is not real just like the square root of -1 is not real. A cup however is real, a room is real, a cupboard is real hence they can be described as empty. Contains NO-THING.

Let's have an example:
You asked a student to bring something (anything) from your table and he returns empty handed. Would you take it that he really brought something?

Just as empty is an adjective, nothing is an adjective. It can't be simpler than that.

You can have "an empty house", an empty cup, etc

NO-THING ≠ SOME-THING

No-thing= Something
if and only if No or Not=Some

misteradey:
You’ve made your point clear and in a respectful way. I really appreciate that. I believe in evolution. It is the basis of life. You can say it’s man’s main purpose. In the same way I believe in the supreme being. Which is God. You mentioned man’s evolution from zygotes, this theory makes sense. But you never mentioned how this zygote came to be. Think about a fruit hanging from a tree. You ask the fruit about the origin. It says “ oh. I originated from This tree. This tree grew all the way from a small branch to a huge tree and it produced me.” But this fruit never makes reference to the seed planter because it knows nothing of the planter. The fruit does not understand anything other than itself and the shrubs around it. The fruit has no idea it was down for a reason. This can be a representation of what man is. Man was created by a being. A being so enormous, so intelligent no man can understand the being’s ways. The ways of the supreme being is beyond human reasoning even the smartest scientists you’ve been talking about call the beginning a Big Bang theory. Something unexplainable. But man’s ego wouldn’t want him to believe something out there is greater than he is so man comes up with theories.

I truly love this presentation of yours. Keep it up!

The illustration is simple and straightforward: and yet not easy to ignore.

Stay blessed

shadeyinka:
A space is a boundary defined by area or volume and The volume could be real or virtual. Emptiness qualifies/describes a space.

Agreed. Emptiness describes a space, real or virtual. It is the space that contains nothing, but that space still exists with boundaries defined by area or volume, real or virtual. That space is not nothing even though it is empty. The house, cup, space and your head may all be empty but they are still your head which is quite a lot of something.

shadeyinka:
A virtual space is not real just like the square root of -1 is not real. A cup however is real, a room is real, a cupboard is real hence they can be described as empty. Contains NO-THING.

Above, you said "Emptiness describes a space, real or virtual", but here you seem to be making a distinction just by changing your mind! Why?

shadeyinka:
Let's have an example:
You asked a student to bring something (anything) from your table and he returns empty handed. Would you take it that he really brought something?

I would say the student brought nothing from the table that I told the student to bring something from. After it is the student's hand that is empty. The table is still there occupying space. It would be very incorrect to say nothing was where I told the student to bring something from unless the table itself were not there occupying the space it did.

shadeyinka:
Just as empty is an adjective, nothing is an adjective. It can't be simpler than that.

Really? Yet, here we are for days now trading words over it.

Space is not an adjective!

shadeyinka:
You can have "an empty house", an empty cup, etc

NO-THING ≠ SOME-THING

No-thing= Something
if and only if No or Not=Some

What you have is an empty something, a something which is empty, a something with nothing inside it, and not an 'empty nothing'.

Basically, empty ≠ nothing, since always, a something, which is not nothing, has to be empty.

budaatum:
Agreed. Emptiness describes a space, real or virtual. It is the space that contains nothing, but that space still exists with boundaries defined by area or volume, real or virtual. That space is not nothing even though it is empty. The house, cup, space and your head may all be empty but they are still your head which is quite a lot of something.


Above, you said "Emptiness describes a space, real or virtual", but here you seem to be making a distinction just by changing your mind! Why?


I would say the student brought nothing from the table that I told the student to bring something from. After it is the student's hand that is empty. The table is still there occupying space. It would be very incorrect to say nothing was where I told the student to bring something from unless the table itself were not there occupying the space it did .

You are caught in your own web of misdefinition. Didnt the student brought "something" called "nothing" from among the "somethings" on the table!?

budaatum:
Really? Yet, here we are for days now trading words over it.

Space is not an adjective!


What you have is an empty something, a something which is empty, a something with nothing inside it, and not an 'empty nothing'.

Basically, empty ≠ nothing, since always, a something, which is not nothing, has to be empty.

What ever that means (the bolded). You just stated that nothing is NOT a noun. If it's not a noun, nothing cannot be a Something!

Empty nothing cannot make sense
Nothing that is empty cannot make sense

Empty Something (cup,room , box) make sense
Something (bowl, kettle, ) that is empty makes sense

Didn't I define space well?

Can you find an adjective to describe "empty" or an adjective that describes "nothing"! For if they are really "Something", they should have verbs and adjectives describing them.

Let me help you with some starters:
The Goat is black!
You'll find a greenish thing in the hole!

shadeyinka:
I think your emphasis now is on the character of God ,"loving"!
The word "loving" cannot be overstretched beyond reason.

It is understandable if God loves His own "children" unconditionally.
But can God love all His creations unconditionally?

If God is Just: He must punish wickedness!...even from His
own Children

Are all humans children of God?
The answer is a big NO!

Yes I am challenging God's character. In particular the God you describe. I think he is awful, if I'm bring frank. And I'm trying to figure out why you'd willing worship such an awful character.

He created everyone then picks and whoses who he likes..great guy! Among his criteria for chosing is what I would describe from what is supposed to be a God's view as ignorance or lack of understanding on the part of the humans that he doesn't regard. But such is the nature of this awful God.

I put emphasis on loving cuz a truely loving character is nothing like what you've describe. A petty being who's love is extremely conditional towards the very creature he himself created.

shadeyinka:
You are caught in your own web of misdefinition. Didnt the student brought "something" called "nothing" from among the "somethings" on the table!?

You are caught in your own misunderstanding!

No! The student brought nothing from amongst the somethings on the table! The student never picked up nothing off the table and brought it!

shadeyinka:
What ever that means (the bolded). You just stated that nothing is NOT a noun. If it's not a noun, nothing cannot be a Something!

Nothing, is not a noun, nor is something. Nothing is nothing. And something is something. An empty something is however not nothing since a something needs to be empty.

I think you are wrongly replacing empty with nothing. If there is nothing there is nothing at all, no space, no table and no your head to be empty. Empty always describes the state of something and is therefore not about nothing.

shadeyinka:
Empty nothing cannot make sense
Nothing that is empty cannot make sense

Precisely. Nothing cannot be empty. Something has to be empty.

shadeyinka:
Empty Something (cup,room , box) make sense
Something (bowl, kettle, ) that is empty makes sense

Precisely. Something has to be empty.

shadeyinka:
Can you find an adjective to describe "empty" or an adjective that describes "nothing"! For if they are really "Something", they should have verbs and adjectives describing them.

Empty is an adjective that describes a noun, why would you want an adjective that describes an adjective

Nothing and something, however, are pronouns, i.e. words that can function as a noun phrase used by itself and that refers either to the participants in the discourse (e.g. I, you, space, something ) or to someone or something mentioned elsewhere in the discourse (e.g. she, it, this, table ).

shadeyinka:
Let me help you with some starters:
The Goat is black!
You'll find a greenish thing in the hole!

As in, the goat (something) is black.
And, You'll find a greenish thing (something) in the hole (somewhere).

You would only use the words black and find in your above given contexts to describe a something somewhere, like a goat greenish thing in the hole.

Dhumancanvas:
Yes I am challenging God's character. In particular the God you describe. I think he is awful, if I'm bring frank. And I'm trying to figure out why you'd willing worship such an awful character.

He created everyone then picks and whoses who he likes..great guy! Among his criteria for chosing is what I would describe from what is supposed to be a God's view as ignorance or lack of understanding on the part of the humans that he doesn't regard. But such is the nature of this awful God.

I put emphasis on loving cuz a truely loving character is nothing like what you've describe. A petty being who's love is extremely conditional towards the very creature he himself created.

I think I have explained the "loving!" to you: and you may choose to misunderstand it. It doesn't change anything. I understand that your misunderstanding is based on a false premise of a view that "the size of God" is comparable to that of man. Unfortunately, not. He's is vastly different from us.

If you cultured yoghurt bacteria, do you have to explain to anyone what you do to both the yoghurt and the bacteria therein?

You actually sound angry over the "arrogance of God"! Why should He...!? At least for you, you can see that your choice isn't just based on intellectual conclusion BUT emotional! Why should one get emotional over what doesn't exist?

If I told you that you are actually under the influence of a spiritual virus, you wouldn't agree because nothing will convince you.

And like I said, the love of God to His children is unconditional. However, not all Gods creations are His children.

budaatum:
You are caught in your own misunderstanding!

No! The student brought nothing from amongst the somethings on the table! The student never picked up nothing off the table and brought it!


Nothing, is not a noun, nor is something. Nothing is nothing. And something is something. An empty something is however not nothing since a something needs to be empty.

I think you are wrongly replacing empty with nothing. If there is nothing there is nothing at all, no space, no table and no your head to be empty. Empty always describes the state of something and is therefore not about nothing.


Precisely. Nothing cannot be empty. Something has to be empty.


Precisely. Something has to be empty.


Empty is an adjective that describes a noun, why would you want an adjective that describes an adjective

Nothing and something, however, are pronouns, i.e. words that can function as a noun phrase used by itself and that refers either to the participants in the discourse (e.g. I, you, space, something ) or to someone or something mentioned elsewhere in the discourse (e.g. she, it, this, table ).


As in, the goat (something) is black.
And, You'll find a greenish thing (something) in the hole (somewhere).

You would only use the words black and find in your above given contexts to describe a something somewhere, like a goat greenish thing in the hole.

I really don't know what you're up to

It all started with you saying:
Nothing is Something!

If "Nothing is something", should the corollary "Something is Nothing" not also true?

Consider your take here:

No! The student brought nothing from amongst the somethings on the table! The student never picked up nothing off the table and brought it!

It simply means "nothing" isn't part of the "somethings" on the table. If "Nothing" is "Something", you wouldn't find it difficult to agree that he has brought"Something" even though empty handed.

shadeyinka:
I think I have explained the "loving!" to you: and you may choose to misunderstand it. It doesn't change anything. I understand that your misunderstanding is based on a false premise of a view that "the size of God" is comparable to that of man. Unfortunately, not. He's is vastly different from us.

If you cultured yoghurt bacteria, do you have to explain to anyone what you do to both the yoghurt and the bacteria therein?

You actually sound angry over the "arrogance of God"! Why should He...!? At least for you, you can see that your choice isn't just based on intellectual conclusion BUT emotional! Why should one get emotional over what doesn't exist?

If I told you that you are actually under the influence of a spiritual virus, you wouldn't agree because nothing will convince you.

And like I said, the love of God to His children is unconditional. However, not all Gods creations are His children.

I'm not angry at all actually. The anger you percieve is probably due to the degree of my disapproval of this character which shows in the way I express it. If you have at all read any of my responses to others you'd notice that this tone only appears in response to you and the character you describe. Frankly I've agreed completely with a few theists on this very thread so don't confuse yourself.
I came here to religious second of this forum for entertainment. I've also said that on this thread because frankly in my day to day life this none existent God doesn't factor in, I don't even talk about it. So once again don't get confused. No one is getting emotional here.

That out of the way. I am going to entertain you. I'm under the influence of a spirit huh? Please do enlighten. I'd love to know how you arrived at that?

Dhumancanvas:
I'm not angry at all actually. The anger you percieve is probably due to the degree of my disapproval of this character which shows in the way I express it. If you have at all read any of my responses to others you'd notice that this tone only appears in response to you and the character you describe. Frankly I've agreed completely with a few theists on this very thread so don't confuse yourself.
I came here to religious second of this forum for entertainment. I've also said that on this thread because frankly in my day to day life this none existent God doesn't factor in, I don't even talk about it. So once again don't get confused. No one is getting emotional here.

That out of the way. I am going to entertain you. I'm under the influence of a spirit huh? Please do enlighten. I'd love to know how you arrived at that?

Everyone is under the influence of a spirit!

I am under the influence of a spirit too!

shadeyinka:
It simply means "nothing" isn't part of the "somethings" on the table. If "Nothing" is "Something", you wouldn't find it difficult to agree that he has brought "Something" even though empty handed.

Lol! So, because the student returns empty handed, we are to assume the table had nothing on it!? What if the student was being lazy or just stupid and didn't pick up anything from all the things that were on the table? Is it not truer that it is the student's hand that is empty which says nought about whether there is something or nothing on top of the table? But that's beside the point.

Nothing is not something! Nothing is absolutely nothing, not tables, not spaces, not heads, not student's hands, just nothing. Hence, nothing can be empty, because nothing is nothing.

Empty things are 'somethings' - tables, spaces, heads, student's hands - that have nothing inside or on top of them. A something with nothing in it is empty.

budaatum:
Lol! So, because the student returns empty handed, we are to assume the table had nothing on it!? What if the student was being lazy or just stupid and didn't pick up anything from all the things that were on the table? Is it not truer that it is the student's hand that is empty which says nought about whether there is something or nothing on top of the table? But that's beside the point.

Nothing is not something! Nothing is absolutely nothing, not tables, not spaces, not heads, not student's hands, just nothing. Hence, nothing can be empty, because nothing is nothing.

Empty things are 'somethings' - tables, spaces, heads, student's hands - that have nothing inside or on top of them. A something with nothing in it is empty.

The student just brought one of the "so called" things on the table: emptiness. Can you see from this that it doesn't fit. Something cannot be Nothing and Nothing cannot be something!

In case you don't still understand: a table cannot be 100% full. If nothing is something, it means that the total Something on the table must include the nothing. The student thus brings that something called Nothing: can't you see that this is a contradiction and logical fallacies!

I think this case is closed.

Your Quote::

Sorry, but "science" does not say there was nothing before the big bang! If there was nothing before the big bang, there would be nothing to go bang for starts, and " empty space" is still something, a space with nothing in it.

It is the universe as we know it that a beginning is claime

Dhumancanvas:
I don't know why y'all get so mad? What's so sickening about what I've said? I simply tried to articulate my view and i did so as respectfully as i could. Could it be because your God is a creation of you, your god is you and anything seen as a threat to your God or his existence is automatically translated as a threat to you?

You got it in one. People's God is them. It is a concept created in their own image by all the knowledge they have managed to acquire. It is in fact a hyper version of the self, as in not just my flesh and my body or even my spirit, but deep into my soul and into my being the I Am. So when you poke at my God you poke at me being, and how dare you "simply tried to articulate my view and I did so as respectfully as I could", successfully and understanding my profundity to be sickened and mad!?!

shadeyinka:
The student just brought one of the "so called" things on the table: emptiness.

Which one of the so called things on the table was in the student's empty hand that had nothing in it? How do you conclude that the table was empty from the empty student's hand?

shadeyinka:
Can you see from this that it doesn't fit. Something cannot be Nothing and Nothing cannot be something!

So, you agree with me when I say, "Nothing is not something! Nothing is absolutely nothing"?

shadeyinka:
In case you don't still understand: a table cannot be 100% full. If nothing is something, it means that the total Something on the table must include the nothing. The student thus brings that something called Nothing: can't you see that this is a contradiction and logical fallacies!

Not only fallacy, but illogical and off point.. First, the fullness of the table is irrelevant since we only have the contents of the student's hand and not a record of what is or is not on the table. The table might be full of stuff or have nothing on it, in fact, there might not even be a table in the space we sent the student to, but that's not a judgement one makes so swiftly on seeing the empty hand of the student. Just think. You send someone to the bank to get you 100k and they return empty handed. Would your first assumption be, the bank was empty?

shadeyinka:
I think this case is closed.

I appreciate your time and an a-game. It is highly regarding of you. You never forgot we began with an empty space, filled it with something but call it nothing because we cannot see it in a student's hand. I'll write it in bold my sake.

Empty space is not nothing. It is a space that is empty.

Empty space is something, a space with nothing in it.

It's been wonderfully refreshing discussing with you, Shadeyinka.

budaatum:
Which one of the so called things on the table was in the student's empty hand that had nothing in it? How do you conclude that the table was empty from the empty student's hand?


So, you agree with me when I say, "Nothing is not something! Nothing is absolutely nothing"?


Not only fallacy, but illogical and off point.. First, the fullness of the table is irrelevant since we only have the contents of the student's hand and not a record of what is or is not on the table. The table might be full of stuff or have nothing on it, in fact, there might not even be a table in the space we sent the student to, but that's not a judgement one makes so swiftly on seeing the empty hand of the student. Just think. You send someone to the bank to get you 100k and they return empty handed. Would your first assumption be, the bank was empty?


I appreciate your time and an a-game. It is highly regarding of you. You never forgot we began with an empty space, filled it with something but call it nothing because we cannot see it in a student's hand. I'll write it in bold my sake.

Empty space is not nothing. It is a space that is empty.

Empty space is something, a space with nothing in it.

It's been wonderfully refreshing discussing with you, Shadeyinka.

You too.
But there is no nothing that is something! Not possible!

Peace!

shadeyinka:
You too.
But there is no nothing that is something! Not possible!

Peace!

Nothing cannot be something. But something has to have nothing in it for that something to be empty.

budaatum:
Nothing cannot be something. But something has to have nothing in it for that something to be empty.

And sometimes that empty Something is a virtual Something!

shadeyinka:
And sometimes that empty Something is a virtual Something!

Virtual o, real o, it's still a something, and not a nothing.

budaatum:
Virtual o, real o, it's still a something, and not a nothing.

A virtual space cannot be "a thing"! It is imaginary!

shadeyinka:
A virtual space cannot be "a thing"! It is imaginary!

Really? Like God, right? Only kidding.

Remember this?

budaatum:
Before I prove it, let's be certain we are on the same page.

Consider an empty space. Where is it? Has it got a size? What is it? Please.

You never did consider at the time.

An imaginary space is something in the mind that is imagining it, though it is nothing to the mind that isn't.