₦airaland Forum

Heading out to attend to an emergency now guys. Do not miss me too much.

LightandDarkness:
If a creator being can exist without the need for a first cause or creation and is simply eternal then why is the model of the cyclic universal wrong. Similar to your argument for an uncaused creator being the first cause the cyclical universe is eternal and it's existence is not contingent on anything, if you assume the existence of one non-contingent being or thing you cannot deny an assumption of the existence of any other.

The problem of this cyclical multiverse is in the 2nd law of Thermodynamics which is saying that the entropy of any given system can in no way stay constant. It instead always increases with time. The value of entropy determines how long a given cycle would last.

The higher the value of entropy the more erratically moving particles will be squeezed in the process of collapse which will lead to a more intense bang afterwards.

Hence, the following Universe would expand more rapidly and the cycle will therefore last longer than the previous one. In this sense, each previous cycle must be shorter; thus we must conclude that in a certain moment in the past there should have been a starting cycle.

Note: this is applicable to our realm of perception. God does not fit into our realm of perception.

I hope my brief explanation above helps you out of this quagmire.

CoolUsername:
Maybe God killed himself to create the Universe? I think they call that pandeism. An interesting concept in my opinion, Scott Adams, maker of the newspaper cartoon, Dilbert wrote about in his piece, God's Debris. The guy believes that self-destruction is the only worthwhile challenge for an omnipotent being, causing God to kill himself with our Universe being a byproduct.

Obviously, this is very unlikely due to argument of God being unnecessary which I always make but it is still a nice concept to consider.

So an ETERNAL BEING killed himself? Pure undiluted crock.

KingEbukasBlog:
Exactly !!! The bible has been screaming creatio ex deo yet some Christians support the creatio ex nihilo

Now I wonder where they got that from

I wonder about that too.

KingEbukasBlog:
Gbam !

This one even makes it clearer .

Thanks

Read from verse 16 to 17. That holds true.

16. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

KingEbukasBlog:
A we talking of Christianity or theism? What concerns the scripture now because it does not even say the universe came from nothing.

Created out of the being of God is somewhat like panentheism, whereby the universe is the material manifestation and it interprenates in it but the immaterial being is yet distinct and greater than its material manifestation.

Ephesians 4:6 King James Version (KJV)
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I think this verse gives the greatest hint that everything was created from the being of God .

Colossians chapter 1 verse 16 and 17

16. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

JackBizzle:
This is the last time I quote or answer you.

Awww Jack is upset

Stop hiding behind mood swings and deal with it(me). I will still quote you even if you refuse to respond simply because I know you would still read my comments. As long as I am able to impart some sense into you I am play with it.

JackBizzle:
The fact is that I do not know how the universe came about. The most plausible theory, albeit sci-fi, to me is the cyclical multiverse.

Tluvie is saying the same thing albeit in his/her own way.

Ogbeni, SWERVE

You still do not get it. The cyclical multiverse begins with a Big Bang and ends with a big crunch and propagates the theory of the universe coming from NOTHING.

The cyclic model is highly regarded among many physicists partly because it allows them to avoid the question about the origin of the Universe.

The start of each cycle is caused by the end of the previous one, but according to the model this process lasts forever, whereby it goes silent when it comes to the very first cycle.

Do you not see the obvious error and vacuity?

KingEbukasBlog:
The theory of the cyclic universe has been debunked by science . I'm with a mobile device now , I would have explained in details.



There are three concepts of creation

1. Creatio ex deo - creation out of the being of God which I subscribe to

2. Creatio ex materia - eternal universe coexisting with God from past infinitude.

3. Creatio ex nihilo - creation out of nothing

Not everyone subscribes to creation out of nothing . And there are theists who object creatio ex nihilo

Apparently, you are mocking in ignorance which is just a pitiful thing to see .

Number one holds true and I subscribe to that as well. God conceived us as thought (his being) and brought us to reality.

Much the same way every invention or produce of man was also first a thought and later a tangible projection of himself.

JackBizzle:
Bravo!

You put it better than I could.

Cc kingebukasblog ati spectacular. This is how to give a reasoned opinion and not the B.S. you produce

You do not even understand what you responded to. Let me post an extract To Help you out with.

"Now, this is what qualifies as the "first cause" or "set of first causes" I termed NECESSARY. If the physical universe itself isn't eternal, then it must depend on something. It's like some energy from the origin being transformed into physicality, and physicality eventually returning to that non-physical origin, like a wave continuously rising and collapsing, like the musical waves of Orpheus. The key point here is that the origin, the foundation is not NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE since neither can give rise to SOMETHING nor EXISTENCE. It's only transformation of the universal fundamental basis taking place endlessly."


He is simply saying that the universe has a creator but he is struggling to understand how this creator achieved this feat. Which is understandable due to his limited perception.

So do you believe the universe was CREATED or it EXPANDED FROM A SINGULARITY?

TLuzzie:
Lol. I may be a bit 'confused', but you're definitely a tad confused more than I am.

And the atheist is attacking the THEIST thought about the nature of the universe's origin/the first cause/"GOD", so defend it IF YOU are a theist. It is called aTHEISM for a reason.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Good point. It depends on what you MEAN by 'God'. You can't be insane enough to tell me that the universe finds its origin in your mobile device, can you?

Chill bro. Atheism denies the God of the theists. That is the only set of Gods the atheist has RULED out. He might not subscribe to the others, but might be apathetic towards them.

The Abrahamic God, I repeat, is an IMPOSSIBLE NONSENSE.

So if the abrahamic God is an impossible nonsense this means there is a possible "sense" of a God out there which to you isn't the abrahamic God. So can you tell me who or what this God is?

JackBizzle:
Is the first cause a scientific fact or some theological woowoo

Do you have a scientific mind? You do not even possess what you seek.

The first cause you know Is it a scientific fact?

TLuzzie:
Very good. I get the message. I'll help you inform one of my uncles that there's a new babe from the UK. But rest assured that I'll NEVER reply you again.

You are quite emotional today. So you will never reply me again? Let's see how long you can go on with it especially with the chart blowing range of vitriol and bile in you.

An apple never falls far from the tree. Your uncles must be your replica. You all would be my favourite past time. I take serious people seriously but clowns are just for past times.

TLuzzie:
Thank you. You can fuck_ off, now please. Why's that so hard to do? What is your problem?

My problem is that you are my favourite past time

TLuzzie:
Good, b!tch. I've fed you your dogsh!t and you found it delicious. Enjoy your meal. Oya leave me alone now, will you? You can't marry two people nah.

Oh so you are an encapsulation of that which you dish out? I hope the job pays well.

TLuzzie:
Stop disgracing your husband joor! You're too old for this nah. While, "I", like you said, "still have a long way to go".

My husband can speak for himself and he does so ever so eloquently.

You do have a long way to go when it comes to common sense. So for that, you are right!

JackBizzle:
I like how you put out your thoughts on a coherent manner. However, I do not agree with some of it.

There will always be a paradox of the first cause and infinite regress.

You see, time as a concept goes infinitely both ways- the future goes on forever and the past will keep going further back. Just like how numbers can be infinite on both sides of the number line.

There may not be a first cause but rather a cyclical recurring loop of creation and anti creation. This is science fiction but it really appeals to me.

So now it's science fiction and no longer pure scientific proof?

Jack oh Jack!

And there was Mr Dalaman talking to me about physical perception. I think he also needs to talk to you about it Jack or is science fiction also physical perception or felt by the senses.

TLuzzie:
Says the married agbaya obsessed with a "tyager" in cyberspace.

Don't flatter yourself!

TLuzzie:
You carry my moniker in your soul. It's a delight knowing that I have a fan.

Yes you have a fan. In your deluded imagination yes you do.

dalaman:
How can a communication be sensible when you are supporting something that can not be precived by the senses?

Are your senses all there truly is of you? If your answer is yes then I guess clairvoyance is also nonsense.

You are limited and I respect that but do not expect me to make sense to you because I simply cannot.

TLuzzie:
I think there was a reason why I didn't mention you b!tch? Can you kindly remind me?

Because you are my favourite past time

realtem:
yes your description doesn't make anything exist. But to prove to yourself or anyone else that something exists. You have to touch it's nature.

That's why I said we are limited by our perception. Our perception is based on scepticism that's all it is.

Everything man has ever attached properties to have been DISCOVERIES of things ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. Go figure!

dalaman:
You are making claims that aren't based on evidence or logic and you are talking about sensible communication? The spiritual is anchored on the illogic because anything can be asserted when it comes to the spritual.

Again you are right based on your perception. Your perception does not permit sensible communication.

TLuzzie:
Atheism is contrasted with THEISM, as the name implies, not DEISM. A person like Richard Dawkins is armed against theists but philosophically ill-equiped against a deist. He has no weapons with which to fight. Deists will kill off his arguments in poofs of smoke.

Stop pitting atheism against deism, and stop hiding under the umbrella of deism. YOU are not a deist. Argue for theism.

By the way, I'm BOTH an atheist and a WEAK/IMPLICIT [color=darkgreen]adeist[/color].

How on earth can you be an outright atheist and a deist at the same time?

Atheism is absolute and so is Deism. You cannot have both.

Saying you are a weak and implicit adeist is simply ludicrous.

Hi my favourite past time how are you doing today?

dalaman:
The spiritual is not based on logic. Anything can be asserted in the world of the spritual since it is a world of empty assertions that is never based on any verifiable evidence. Like I can say I went to London yesterday and saw the Nigerian president spiritually, we connected spiritually and had a good time after which I realized that his condition needs spritual solution that only me can provide. No body can counter that since the assertion was never made on logic or evidence.

Yes you are right but that is you are right within your fleshly perception. You can argue all day if you wish but you will always be right because that is what you perceive and I wouldn't blame you for that. I would simply blame your handicap.

Not all perceptions are evidence based and I already showed this to Jack.

Anyone who is of a higher scope of perception beyond the physical shouldn't blame you and neither should you blame them for your limitation.

They cannot communicate sensibly with you due to your handicap. You alone can help yourself.

realtem:
yes, this is what i was saying @spacetacular

And I asked if such never existed before properties or a nature was added to it?

It's not our description that makes anything exist. Those things have already existed before we DISCOVERED them based on our perception.

Our perception is limited and is simply a produce of our skepticism but does scepticism negate prior existence before DISCOVERY?

dalaman:
Your God is an abstract object .

Oh yes you are right! God is abstract to those who try to physically look for his evidence yet would not believe any evidence they already see.

To the fleshly God can never be an external reality. But to the spiritual he is as real as I kiss my daughter goodnight every night.

You can term God as abstract if you wish especially since that fits your perception of him.

hopefulLandlord:
you know the funniest part?

in the book "God Delusion", Richard Dawkins actually admitted the possibility of a deist god many times

Even you are towing the line of Jack. Pitiful!

JackBizzle:
Atheism is dogmatic because of Richard Dawkins book that a majority of atheists haven't read?

Wow

Jack oh Jack why is it that you struggle to grasp the message in simple sentences?

This is an extract from the comment made by Felix:

"Sorry atheism is more than dogmatic, considering those who fell for that book."

Did you even see the word in bold text? He said considering those who fell for the book. He was focused on those who read and ran with the content of the book and are still running with it. He was not referring to ALL atheists.

Please sir Jack oh Please think before you type. I have told you this repeatedly already but you seem unable to learn.

JackBizzle:
Abeg swerve.


Keep sipping tea.

Still laughing so hard here. You are obviously not a scientific mind. You just postulate rubbish at every turn.

JackBizzle:
You are truly a clown.

It would be foolish of me to take this post seriously. Nonsense.

That's because you are way too dumb to get it.

JackBizzle:
I don't know who is more of a clown, you or felixomoron.


Quarks are observable through Hadrons.
The earth core exists physically. Google for pics.

Etc.

Ogbeni. These are all physical things.

Wait! The earth's core exists due to pics on Google? You are simply built for laughs.

So you can perceive the earth's core through google pics?

Do you know what the term PHYSICALLY PERCEIVE means at all?

Quarks on their own are NOT observable. My focus is on quarks and not hadrons. Your level of ignorance seems legendary.

Here I am sipping tea and laughing so hard. You take the dumb cake Jack. You really do.