if u have no qualms, proceed with this epistle
.

SOMETHING
https://www.everystudent.com/journeys/something.html

Things even logic would agree to
1. Nothing can come out of nothing.
2. If there is something, there was something, there had always been something.
3. And for everything that is evidently existing, there must be an origin that
i. isn't bound by space nor by time
ii. exist without the dependence on anything else {totally self sufficient}
iii. Must be able to produce anything other than itself.
If it doesn't exist, then every something u see should have been nothing.

Don't argue this things, if u haven't gone thru the epistles I laid down

HappyPagan:

What's your qualm?? Did u find a fault in the logical analogy, kindly let us know, HappyPagan

There are still 2 more epistle to round this up, I need at least a single person, that could dare prove a single part 4rm what i've said illogical. If there isn't by 6pm, I round it up .

WHO?
https://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who.html

This is third epistle, if u haven't gone thru the 1st and the second epistle, do so be4 going thru dis

This is the final Epistle in a series that began with
WAS THERE EVER NOTHING? , followed by
SOMETHING , then followed by WHO. The primary points made in those studies are as follows:
(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.
(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.
(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).
Continuing on, what can we discern about the Eternal Someone, beyond what has been stated already? (It's necessary here to transition from using "It" to "He" or "She" because the Eternal Something is an Eternal Someone. "He" has been chosen but gender is not an issue in this discussion.)
Since the Eternal Someone has no needs that He cannot fulfill on His own, He can exist without need of any kind of environment, for He existed when there was nothing else but Him. Any environment would be outside Him, and therefore would need to be produced. But all there is, is Him.
It's likely then that the Eternal Someone is transcendent. Meaning, He can exist outside of time and space, since He is bound by neither one. He existed eternally, thus being outside of time. And He exists without need of an environment, thus being outside of space.
Being transcendent of time and space, it's possible that the Eternal Someone is what we would call invisible. Only that which takes up space is visible. If something is outside of space, how could it be seen? Just so, the Eternal Someone is likely invisible and can exist without need of any kind of body or form.
THIS SOMEONE, THIS EXACT SOMEONE WITH THIS QUALITIES, THAT MADE EXISTENCE POSSIBLE IS WHO IS CALLED GOD, cause if this SOMETHING doesn't exist, then there should have been NOTHING a million years ago, and still NOTHING a million years after now. But since SOMETHING exists, therefore that SOMEONE/SOMETHING with those quality ascribed with the name GOD, TRULY EXISTS.
SO PAGANS AND ATHEIST, I HAVE PROVED UNTO THEE WITH THAT SAME LOGIC YOU UNDERSTAND that GOD TRULY EXISTS.
PS: I didn't ascribe this same God to any religion whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism.
Typing......

To my dear friend @JeromeBlack and the silent one @HappyPagan. With these I've showed u things that lay plain b4 thee. Now u know truly that a SOMEONE {GOD} truly exists. To your happiness and also your peril, I didn't ascribe this GOd to any religion, any other person's belief or faith.
I can't carry your cross for you, This is exactly where I will stop. Just to erase that "THERE IS NO GOD" farce u abhor in your mind since. The journey is long indeed. @JeromeBlack u especially, would want to fight this, u would search on google ask from ur atheist friends and try other things, in bid to find a fault or lay false claim to all I've stated, but what is based on truth can never be shaken.
I gave u all a series of personal question, in them u would find the truth and would hold on so tightly unto it that nothing on this earth nor heaven can take it away from you again. Lemme try to bring those questions to the fore, for others to see.
Typing.....

These are the self-questions in which u would tread to find the real Truth.
DO WE HAVE A SUPREME CREATOR? {already answered}
COINCIDENCE IS ILLOGICAL, WHAT THEN IS MY PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE??
WHAT DOES MY CREATOR WANT FROM CREATING ME?
DO I HAVE/NEED TO DO WHAT HE WANTS?
WHAT IF I DIE, IS THAT WHERE I END?
......
Signing out......., would only come back to this thread , IF AND ONLY IF
1. @JeromeBlack quotes me
2. if someone needs to be clarified on any of the epistle or want to cook up smtin against it {which is impossible}
3. If it necessarily requires

Happy weekend guys... Have fun.

HappyPagan:
Happy weekend guys... Have fun.

Happy weekend

HappyPagan:
Happy weekend guys... Have fun.

Same to you buddy!

Any chess lovers here... I'm on lichess... Happypagan

Hmm

HappyPagan:
Any chess lovers here... I'm on lichess... Happypagan

I'm on gameknot.

budaatum:

I'm on gameknot.

I've been unable to register, not getting any confirmation emails in my inbox. Checked my spam too...


You should give lichess a try. Its on mobile.

festwiz:
Hmm

Hey bee

HappyPagan:

I've been unable to register, not getting any confirmation emails in my inbox. Checked my spam too...


You should give lichess a try. Its on mobile.

I have in the past and think its above my level. If you do sort out gameknot, I'm budat.

budaatum:

I have in the past and think its above my level. If you do sort out gameknot, I'm budat.

Okay. I'll try with a different account.

Blabbermouth:
Things even logic would agree to
1. Nothing can come out of nothing.

In the real sense this statement doesn't make any sense.. For one, "nothing" is what we humans use to define a lack of physical objects.. And no matter how much we push back the notion of "nothing" there is never a pure "nothing" state.

So "nothing" can come out of "nothing" is nonsensical, the only thing we know to be true is something coming from something and so it appears something is what exists with no defined beginning(except the observable universe)

2. If there is something, there was something, there had always been something.

True as we(science) can tell.. Apart from the known universe.

3. And for everything that is evidently existing, there must be an origin that

i. isn't bound by space nor by time

Everything we know to exist is bound by space and time, sorry
Your assertion is false..

ii. exist without the dependence on anything else {totally self sufficient}

What verified object matches this description that we know is real and can ascertain its existence?
This is another assumption put into your logic.

iii. Must be able to produce anything other than itself.

We don't even know what the something that always existed is, nor if it may only make replicas of itself.
This assumption isn't even true in the most part if scrutinized properly... For example, Cats don't produce anything other than Cats.

We live in a cause and effect universe that builds on physical relationships that gives us patterns.

If it doesn't exist, then every something u see should have been nothing.

Again... When we apply something and nothing we fail to realize that it only applies to the object in question, they lose meaning and can't be used to make logical deductions.

For example would you say without the something of Nigeria, that whole area would be "nothing", no land, no country, no soil, no people, nothing at all?

Or that without the something of your birth and existence there would be "nothing", no other human being born to your family, no aunty, no uncle to this new human, nothing at all?

What happens is that things still fill in the metaphorical gap of our idea of "nothing" and only is fulfilled when we mean uniqueness, and even that is thrown out the window of our understanding.

Don't argue this things, if u haven't gone thru the epistles I laid down

Your "epistles" are unsound and lay assumption after assumption to try to insist on even bigger assumptions.
Nothing is not a physical state of anything, it is a term we've used to associate the lack of a predefined thing and without that something... You can't remove things from existence into a state of nothing as nothing has never been known to be a state of anything.

Blabbermouth:
This is the final Epistle in a series that began with
WAS THERE EVER NOTHING? , followed by
SOMETHING , then followed by WHO. The primary points made in those studies are as follows:
(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

We've already established the notion of nothing cannot be put in use by physical states from my previous reply to your post.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something.

How do we know we can group it as a something instead of somethings? Or categorize it as an eternal something and not an eternal group of things each one more "eternal" than the last and thus arriving at a something that isn't as "eternal" as the rest(that-is our universe)?

The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, 1has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, 2can do whatever is possible that can be done, and 3will always be superior to anything It produces.

I put numbers in front of each claim to make you realize your folly.
For 1
What needs/requirement can we deduce from logic for an eternal something/somethings when we don't know it's properties or can even call it a collective something and not things that interact with both itself and other things it might inhabit or interact with?
We don't know to what extent or ability it requires and fulfills or fails to acquire.

For 2
Whatever is possible doesn't mean it can be done or exists directly from a thing. It's plausible to have elements orders of magnitude above the ones in the periodic table but those elements don't exist naturally.
It's possible to have 5 or more fingers but not all humans express the genes to give them that.

You have no reason to claim this something/somethings can do all things possible.

For 3
This logic doesn't even hold true in our universe.. Our sun was formed by hydrogen nuclei fusing together, it's substance isn't greater than what it produced.. A lot of things aren't greater than their creations. Assumption mute.

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself.

How do we verify this claim? And if you can claim from 2 that it has "needs" then it must be influenced by something other than itself..
So your "logic" is attacking itself here.

And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs.

How do we know this?

Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so.

How did you come about the claim it can decide things? And aren't decisions options influenced by needs or pathways that need to be explored?
So again, your logic is attacking itself here, if it has no needs not already met by itself, what prompts decisions if it can even make any at all?

That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

Nope, your previous claims aren't true. You're cherry picking here and it has crumbled your logic.

Continuing on, what can we discern about the Eternal Someone, beyond what has been stated already? (It's necessary here to transition from using "It" to "He" or "She" because the Eternal Something is an Eternal Someone. "He" has been chosen but gender is not an issue in this discussion.)
Since the Eternal Someone has no needs that He cannot fulfill on His own, He can exist without need of any kind of environment, for He existed when there was nothing else but Him. Any environment would be outside Him, and therefore would need to be produced. But all there is, is Him.
It's likely then that the Eternal Someone is transcendent. Meaning, He can exist outside of time and space, since He is bound by neither one. He existed eternally, thus being outside of time. And He exists without need of an environment, thus being outside of space.
Being transcendent of time and space, it's possible that the Eternal Someone is what we would call invisible. Only that which takes up space is visible. If something is outside of space, how could it be seen? Just so, the Eternal Someone is likely invisible and can exist without need of any kind of body or form.
THIS SOMEONE, THIS EXACT SOMEONE WITH THIS QUALITIES, THAT MADE EXISTENCE POSSIBLE IS WHO IS CALLED GOD, cause if this SOMETHING doesn't exist, then there should have been NOTHING a million years ago, and still NOTHING a million years after now. But since SOMETHING exists, therefore that SOMEONE/SOMETHING with those quality ascribed with the name GOD, TRULY EXISTS.
SO PAGANS AND ATHEIST, I HAVE PROVED UNTO THEE WITH THAT SAME LOGIC YOU UNDERSTAND that GOD TRULY EXISTS.
PS: I didn't ascribe this same God to any religion whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism.
Typing......

The above is nothing but wishful thinking and cherry picking.. You started good but had a preconceived notion at hand.

davien:
We've already established the notion of nothing cannot be put in use by physical states from my previous reply to your post.

How do we know we can group it as a something instead of somethings? Or categorize it as an eternal something and not an eternal group of things each one more "eternal" than the last and thus arriving at a something that isn't as "eternal" as the rest(that-is our universe)?
I put numbers in front of each claim to make you realize your folly.
For 1
What needs/requirement can we deduce from logic for an eternal something/somethings when we don't know it's properties or can even call it a collective something and not things that interact with both itself and other things it might inhabit or interact with?
We don't know to what extent or ability it requires and fulfills or fails to acquire.

For 2
Whatever is possible doesn't mean it can be done or exists directly from a thing. It's plausible to have elements orders of magnitude above the ones in the periodic table but those elements don't exist naturally.
It's possible to have 5 or more fingers but not all humans express the genes to give them that.

You have no reason to claim this something/somethings can do all things possible.

For 3
This logic doesn't even hold true in our universe.. Our sun was formed by hydrogen nuclei fusing together, it's substance isn't greater than what it produced.. A lot of things aren't greater than their creations. Assumption mute.


How do we verify this claim? And if you can claim from 2 that it has "needs" then it must be influenced by something other than itself..
So your "logic" is attacking itself here.
How do we know this?

How did you come about the claim it can decide things? And aren't decisions options influenced by needs or pathways that need to be explored?
So again, your logic is attacking itself here, if it has no needs not already met by itself, what prompts decisions if it can even make any at all?
Nope, your previous claims aren't true. You're cherry picking here and it has crumbled your logic.
The above is nothing but wishful thinking and cherry picking.. You started good but had a preconceived notion at hand.

Beloved, (are u @JeromeBlack?)
1. Check out the link I posted a page b4 where the final epistle you saw is, the logical reply to all your assumptions is there. CHECK THAT OUT FIRST
2.NOTHING in that context was used to facilitate understanding. Because it isnt in your realm doesn't mean it can't exist. If u have never felt PAIN, and someone else was telling u how pain is like, you would say "Logically, it isn't part of anything I've felt therefore u are a liar, it doesn't exist". If ye Will, use the SOMETHING/SOMEONE u are accustomed to, either ways, if u re-read the link , then the final epistle , you would still arrive at what I was trying to pass across
3. That your notion of " cat can't produce anything other than cat" tell me please *Robots, Humanoid, Sex Doll* are they really human? , why can't your notion for cat hold same for HUMANS. Now u see don't you? Also I don't see how these things can be greater than humans.
4. Tell me in summary, your notion is "if I can't see, touch or feel it, it doesn't exist" .I laugh in calculus.
5. Almost everything in that epistle, was based on logic of "what is evident presently"
If I see an art in a hotel room(the evident), I could conclude from logic that, "An artiste made the art" if not, there would be no such art in that room.
A simple brain teaser
Where does the numbers (123) start from?
6. Once again go and re-read those epistles from the scratch b4 dragging meh back to things that has been cleared already.
7. If u now see anything out of place.
Pinpoint them, so it could be ironed outeternal

Blabbermouth:

Beloved, (are u @JeromeBlack?)
1. Check out the link I posted a page b4 where the final epistle you saw is, the logical reply to all your assumptions is there. CHECK THAT OUT FIRST
2.NOTHING in that context was used to facilitate understanding. Because it isnt in your realm doesn't mean it can't exist. If u have never felt PAIN, and someone else was telling u how pain is like, you would say "Logically, it isn't part of anything I've felt therefore u are a liar, it doesn't exist". If ye Will, use the SOMETHING/SOMEONE u are accustomed to, either ways, if u re-read the link , then the final epistle , you would still arrive at what I was trying to pass across
3. That your notion of " cat can't produce anything other than cat" tell me please *Robots, Humanoid, Sex Doll* are they really human? , why can't your notion for cat hold same for HUMANS. Now u see don't you? Also I don't see how these things can be greater than humans.
4. Tell me in summary, your notion is "if I can't see, touch or feel it, it doesn't exist" .I laugh in calculus.
5. Almost everything in that epistle, was based on logic of "what is evident presently"
If I see an art in a hotel room(the evident), I could conclude from logic that, "An artiste made the art" if not, there would be no such art in that room.
A simple brain teaser
Where does the numbers (123) start from?
6. Once again go and re-read those epistles from the scratch b4 dragging meh back to things that has been cleared already.
7. If u now see anything out of place.
Pinpoint them, so it could be ironed outeternal

Address my points coherently(one after the other, reply each post as I did).

And most importantly, clarify each term in the context you are referring to... Awaiting your reply to my posts(remember to quote and address each notion so the debate can progress)

Though what is true about your "EPISTLES", is that they're unfounded and leads up to the "begging the question" fallacy.. What you're trying to prove is beyond logic... Hence faith is the medium it is believed with.

davien:
Address my points coherently(one after the other, reply each post as I did).

And most importantly, clarify each term in the context you are referring to... Awaiting your reply to my posts(remember to quote and address each notion so the debate can progress)

Though what is true about your "EPISTLES", is that they're unfounded and leads up to the "begging the question" fallacy.. What you're trying to prove is beyond logic... Hence faith is the medium it is believed with.

I actually don't know how to do it the way you did {the quotes I mean }. Tell me something, have u really gone thru those epistle in the link?

@Blabbermouth, I'm still reading your articles. I'm in the second epistle. So far, from your posts, you're an erudite Christian compare to some half-baked Pastors.

A good Christian should be able to argue about the existence of God without quoting Bible verses just as you did.

I'll return here when I'm done.

ediko5:
@Blabbermouth, I'm still reading your articles. I'm in the second epistle. So far, from your posts, you're an erudite Christian compare to some half-baked Pastors.

A good Christian should be able to argue about the existence of God without quoting Bible verses just as you did.

I'll return here when I'm done.

ediko5:
@Blabbermouth, I'm still reading your articles. I'm in the second epistle. So far, from your posts, you're an erudite Christian compare to some half-baked Pastors.

A good Christian should be able to argue about the existence of God without quoting Bible verses just as you did.

I'll return here when I'm done.

Funny man, what makes you think i'm a Christian?

Blabbermouth:

Funny man, what makes you think i'm a Christian?

Lol. But you stated it your posts in the link you shared. The last parts you went biblical quoting Bible portions.

https://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html

JeromeBlack:

Are you the same with @davien?. Moreover, I didn't see your counter. Well, Now you know there is God.
cheers.

ediko5:


Lol. But instead your posts in the link you shared. The last parts you went biblical quoting Bible portions.

https://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html

You would sure see that. I reasoned about God's existence a long time ago. With every thing that works for me. With faith, with thoughts and with Logic. They all arrived at the same thing.
My logical analogy was similar to the one I posted its link. So rather than type out sooo long Epistles, I decided to post the link for this which I came across not too long.
U didn't notice? I purposely didn't include the last part(link) to avoid unnecessary confusion. So I finalised it myself.
Just as I intentionally didn't ascribe this logically-proven God to any faith or religion.

Einstein searched for God's validity. He concluded there is, and in fact he blived the feeble human mind can't comprehend so much about this God .
But, to him he reasoned the Christian God can't be TRUE, with some reasons like DAT.
Einstein knew and believed there is God. Einstein blived in Spinoza's God.

Blabbermouth:

You would sure see that. I reasoned about God's existence a long time ago. With every thing that works for me. With faith, with thoughts and with Logic. They all arrived at the same thing.
My logical analogy was similar to the one I posted its link. So rather than type out sooo long Epistles, I decided to post the link for this which I came across not too long.
U didn't notice? I purposely didn't include the last part(link) to avoid unnecessary confusion. So I finalised it myself.
Just as I intentionally didn't ascribe this logically-proven God to any faith or religion.

Yeah I knew you didn't include the last link cos you said you won't quote any religious faith book.

But followed the link till the end which I'm yet to finish.