Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,153,015 members, 7,817,993 topics. Date: Sunday, 05 May 2024 at 02:32 AM

Viaro's Posts

Nairaland Forum / Viaro's Profile / Viaro's Posts

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (of 85 pages)

Religion / Re: Noah Ark Have Been Discover On The Mountains In Turkey. by viaro: 12:37pm On Apr 29, 2010
ababda:

Even with the videos i still skeptical, so what do you think, Can this be it, Is this actually Noah's Ark. I want to here your opinion about this find.

There's always been hype about the Ark, no doubt. And like you, I'm somewhat skeptical about the hype, especially because reports seem to be either conflicting or serious questions are ignored. Certainly, my skepticism on the hype should not be how it works out for anyone else - I'm just not really finding significance in them strong enough to point to the real thing.

From one of the links already referred to in this thread, two issues stand out for me:

Zimansky said he would welcome hearing more about the site. "It would be nice to know what they have found - if there's a scientific publication in the offing," he told me. "Press releases are not the way archaeology advances."
He was doubtful about the linkage to the Bible story, however. "It's not inconceivable to me that they've found pieces of wood at that level, but that doesn't mean they've found an ark," he said.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/27/2280442.aspx

Although there may be reports here and there that certain structures (including wood, etc) are found between times at the sites, what really do these point to? How is it that such a significant find is very quickly given the status of press conference before any indepth studies are conducted on any finds or artifacts?

This is why enthusiasts like Randall Price (not just him, there are many others) do not add anything fresh either way (positively or negatively) to the whole subject. It does not mean that I had drawn any conclusions elsewhere; but we all have to be careful about the substance of reports around subjects like this one. Just my view.
Religion / Re: Noah Ark Have Been Discover On The Mountains In Turkey. by viaro: 12:10pm On Apr 29, 2010
Bastage:

In my eyes, he doesn't even have to defeat the claim.

Yada-yada. You already drew that conclusion before apologising now, no?

Bastage:
It is logically impossible that Noah's Ark existed as depicted in The Bible.

No conclusions have been drawn yet - that is the point. Your haste in drawing on Randall to "defeat" the claim was what I focused on, and left a comment in my subsequent post that I was not drawing any conclusions from anywhere - not even from the news conference link.

Bastage:

As for knocking him for the comment about repeating the words of others. What do you think that the Bible does then?

I did not knock him - I showed there were far too many gaping holes in his report as admitted in what you excerpted, and which I highlighted.

Bastage:

Cobwebs? How do cobwebs get 13000 feet up a mountain? Mountaineering spiders?

Randall does not present anything from where you lifted your excerpts to argue anything. I would personally be interested in how Randall claims the beams were transported to the location, and yet he is the same dude who claims there were 'cobwebs'. Not only so, but having inferred that his report were his opinions based on secondhand info, he yet leads us to believe he was in that excavation - and then again turning round to make claims about these things.

It was for this reason that I left a link that might have been helpful to see the background of Randall's "opinions". Not that anyone has to pay attention to him in the first instance, but the guy most probably was a bitter loser whose motive does not seem coherent. Therefore, quoting him as "defeating" the claims of the Ark is laughable at best - for Randall's opinions do not serve as finality of issues around claims one way or another.
Religion / Re: What The Bible Says About Muhammad S.a.w. by viaro: 11:56am On Apr 29, 2010
chakula:

Sinai is a reference to Moses (pbuh). It is an obvious reference to Mount Sinai where Moses (pbuh) received his revelation (Exodus 19:20).

Seir is a reference to Jesus (pbuh). It is usually associated with the chain of mountains West and South of the Dead Sea extending through Jerusalem , and Bethlehem , the birthplace of Jesus (pbuh). It was later extended to include the mountains on the East side as well (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 783). However, Seir is also identified with the Northern border of the tribal territory of Judah and usually with Saris near Kesla (Chesalon), barely nine miles West of these two cities (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, by Allen C. Myers, pp. 921-922, and The Interpreter' s Dictionary of the Bible, V4, p. 262) Prophet Moses (pbuh) never in his lifetime entered Palestine, and thus, this could not be a reference to him.

Paran is a reference to the city of Makkah in the Arabian Peninsula . The wilderness of Paran is where Abraham's wife Hagar and his eldest son Ishmael settled (Genesis 21:21) in the Arabian Desert , specifically, Makkah. Makkah is, of course, the capital of Islam in Arabia and the birthplace of Mohammed (pbuh). Mount Paran is the chain of mountains in that same region which the Arabs call the " Sarawat Mountains ". Muhammad (pbuh) received his first revelation in the cave of "Hira'a" located in these mountains. Jesus never in his life traveled to Paran. Mohammed, however, was born there. He became the prophet of Islam there. And it was the capital of the Islamic religion in that day and this. No prophet of the Bible ever came from the Arabian city of Paran (Makkah). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the only prophet of God who has ever fulfilled this prophesy.

^^^

That argument from IslamAwareness does not help, especially because it dubiously switches the subjects in Deuteronomy 33:1-2.

1.   Now, when you say:
chakula: Prophet Moses (pbuh) never in his lifetime entered Palestine, and thus, this could not be a reference to him.
. . . what exactly did you mean? If you meant that Muhammad therefore was to come from Palestine, does that not throw out your argument about a chronology o prophets with reference to location (since you quoted "Moses" as never ever having entered Palestine)?

________

2.   When you say:
chakula: No prophet of the Bible ever came from the Arabian city of Paran (Makkah).
. . . does that again not already destroy your argument in regards to what we have already said? Go back to post #7 in this thread where I said:

(a)  "First, Jews do not receive their prophecies from Arabs - which is why that verse in 18:18 clearly points out"

(b)  "and nowhere in the Law is an Arab included in the covenant of the Jews. Muhammad is not one of the Jews, nor could he have been one of their 'brethren' to rise from among them based on that Jewish covenant."

So, for you to have quoted that article from IslamAwareness that "No prophet of the Bible ever came from the Arabian city of Paran (Makkah)" is just unwittingly acknowledging what viaro already said.

Besides, if you read the Bible carefully, you cannot maintain the conclusion that no prophet of the Bible came from Paran. Indeed we find that the same Israelites had once been to Paran themselves in Numbers 12:16 - "And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran."

Yes, Israel had once pitched in Paran, and that is the same place from which Moses once sent out elders - "And Moses by the commandment of the LORD sent them from the wilderness of Paran: all those men were heads of the children of Israel" (Num. 13:3; see also verse 26).

Also, David himself was in Paran at one time in his life - "And Samuel died; and all the Israelites were gathered together, and lamented him, and buried him in his house at Ramah. And David arose, and went down to the wilderness of Paran" (1 Samuel 25:1).

Dude, the so-called 'choronology' of prophets with reference to location where you concluded that no prophet of the Bible ever came from Paran is a farce - Moses, the children of Israel, and their elders had once pitched their tents in Paran; David also had been to Paran; and it was right from that place that Deut. 33:1-2 reports that God shined forth for Israel.

Bottomline, Muhammad is not an Israelite and could not have emerged from the midst of Israel. As I have noted, not only that no Arab prophet was to emerge from the midst of Israel, but also the Jews do not receive their prophecies from Arabs.

1 Like

Religion / Re: What The Bible Says About Muhammad S.a.w. by viaro: 11:25am On Apr 29, 2010
chakula:


"And this [is] the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran , and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them." (Deuteronomy 33:1)


This is a chronological succession of prophets which is narrated through reference to location.

The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18 has nothing to do with a succession of prophets narrated through reference to "location". To twist those verses to make it a matter of "location" is dubious. Instead, the verses are talking about PEOPLE, not location -

[list]Deuteronomy 18:15 - The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;[/list]

[list]Deuteronomy 18:18 - I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.[/list]

It is obvious from the verses above that -

1.   The Prophet was to come from the midst of a particular people - "a Prophet from the midst of thee" - it is not primarily a question of location.

2.   When God mentions "thee" in verse 15 above, it is in reference to Israel - "from the midst of THEE" (ie, from the midst of Israel).

3.   This shows us clearly that the Prophet was to emerge as a ISRAELITE, not an Arabian from the tribe of Quraish.

4.    Again, the primary people (not location) that the Prophet was to serve was Israel - "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee" - that is, 'unto Israel'.

5.    It is evident that Muhammad as an Arab prophet with an Arabic message in the arabic language from an Arab culture pertained and emphasised a ministry to the Arabic people (Quran 12:02). The fact that Muhammad was hostile to the Jews shows again that Deuteronomy 18 does not point to Muhammad as the Prophet from Israel ("from the midst of THEE"wink who was to be raised up to Israel ("The LORD thy God will raise up unto THEE"wink.

Hence, the question of "location" as a chronology of prophets is a farce even in Islam - for Islam does not make one particular "location" as a reference for all prophets either.
Religion / Re: Noah Ark Have Been Discover On The Mountains In Turkey. by viaro: 11:03am On Apr 29, 2010
ababda:

This is the press conference


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wrBLXcFGeM

^^^
Interesting. However, I wonder who the speakers at the conference were; and how cogent/significant were their announcements.
Religion / Re: Noah Ark Have Been Discover On The Mountains In Turkey. by viaro: 11:00am On Apr 29, 2010
^^^
Bastage:

This claim was defeated the next day by the exhibitions main investor J. Randall Price in a letter[32] saying,

J. Randall Price did not 'defeat' the claim, and any such conclusions of 'defeating' any such claims are merely Randall's puerile conjecture. This is especially the case when he admits that his conclusions are based on secondhand reports and NOT on actual firsthand experience -

Bastage:
I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

Randall's conclusions are his "opinions" and based on what he heard "from others", not to mention that he leaves far too many gaping holes in his report/opinion. See this in the vid response:

           ^^^^^^
           [flash=450,370]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-27rqG7OMg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]

In all this, however, the point is that Randall's argument above cannot be used to draw any conclusions for or against the subject of the Ark. This other article may help to shed a ray of light to tyhe background of Randall and his associates' enthusiasm and subsequent disenchament.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 9:59pm On Apr 21, 2010
jagunlabi:

I don't know whether you are familiar with the new discipline of physics called, HYPER-DIMENSIONAL PHYSICS. This discipline deals with this kind of stuff.

^^^
Wikipedia: Hyperdimensional physics is not taught in any recognized institution of learning anywhere in the world, and 19.5° energy on planet Earth has never been demonstrated.
_____
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland#Hyperdimensional_physics

_______________

jagunlabi:

I don't know whether you are familiar with the new discipline of physics called, HYPER-DIMENSIONAL PHYSICS. This discipline deals with this kind of stuff.

^^^
The Enterprise Mission: This is a physics based on geometric and mathematical foundations which involves other spatial dimensions -- ergo the term, "Hyperdimensional" physics. The field itself began over a hundred years ago, as part of a burgeoning scientific inquiry by 19th-Century mathematicians and physicists into theoretical "non-Euclidian geometries" (geometries involving spatial dimensions in addition to "length, breadth and height"wink, and a set of specifically predicted physical interactions of energy and matter determined by those "non-Euclidian geometries."

http://enterprisemission.com/physics.html

^^^

Wolfram Mathworld: Non-Euclidean Geometry

In three dimensions, there are three classes of constant curvature geometries. All are based on the first four of Euclid's postulates, but each uses its own version of the parallel postulate. The "flat" geometry of everyday intuition is called Euclidean geometry (or parabolic geometry), and the non-Euclidean geometries are called hyperbolic geometry (or Lobachevsky-Bolyai-Gauss geometry) and elliptic geometry (or Riemannian geometry). Spherical geometry is a non-Euclidean two-dimensional geometry. It was not until 1868 that Beltrami proved that non-Euclidean geometries were as logically consistent as Euclidean geometry.

SEE ALSO: Absolute Geometry, Elliptic Geometry, Euclid's Postulates, Euclidean Geometry, Hyperbolic Geometry, Parallel Postulate, Spherical Geometry

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Non-EuclideanGeometry.html

_________

jagunlabi:

If we do qualify them as the latter, then one would immediately see how a physical body can exist in them, because they are also physical universes. But that is still not the spiritual realm.Perhaps this is where the christians arguing for the possilibtiy of physical bodies existing in a non-physical realms got themselves all mixed up.

No, you jagunlabi got yourself all mixed up, sorry. I know that as a Christian, I have not so qualified the one realm as the latter, nor did I ever anywhere misconstrue the physical for the spiritual realm. Your glee at the so-called "hyperdimensional physics" does not help either. Why? For the simple reason that the hyper-D is simply a tour between Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometries - and as has been noted, Non-Euclidean geometries have been proven to be as logically consistent as Euclidean geometry. So, I can understand and bear with you on the assumption of your remark: "If we do qualify them as the latter" - unfortunately, I am not one of those to so qualify them as such.

The fact that I did not so qualify them should be obvious to any careful and objective reader in my remarking that: "I do not know a definitive answer within physics, biology or chemistry that can explain such spiritual phenomena satisfactorily." Does the OP know any physics that explains spiritual phenomena satisfactorily? The hyper-D physics does not even come close at all!

Further, I asked DeepSight a few most basic questions in post #41, and have had to repeat them yet again in my penultimate repost above. These questions are:

[list](1) But if we are to take you on your idealism of ontological musings here, I would like to ask: what is the nature of the reality/realities that exist beyond space and time?[/list]

[list](2) And what would you ever mean by 'space' and 'time' in regards of spatial constructs?[/list]

[list](3) And in what dimensional continuum are you making your assertion that is nothing more than a conjuring of your own limited thinking?[/list]

If one has to even think along the lines of Hyper-D Physics (which is not taught anywhere in the world and has never been demonstrated), one would have to consider the questions above to on such ontologies about realities and 'realms'. As we all know, Hyper-D physics deals with 'other spatial dimensions' based on non-Euclidian geometries - yet, nothing specially arresting there, because the non-Euclidean are as logically consistent as Euclidean geometry.

The whole thing boils down to just one point: too many things are taken for granted by the proposer of this thread, who himself never seeks to address basic issues around the real meaning of spatial constructs for his use of terms that he wishes to discuss (such as 'spiritual realm' and all other tautologies that prove absolutely nothing).

Be that as it may, perhaps you and/or your friends could perhaps look for a more cogent physics that deal with and explains the spiritual satisfactorily as to their real essence/nature. Only at that point could a real discussion ensue.

I'm out ... for a long while. Enjoy.
Religion / Re: Show Me The Autheticity Of Your Bible by viaro: 11:42am On Apr 20, 2010
chakula:

@vairo

Thank you,

I want you to elucidate,explicate or put in plain words in epigrammatic manner the term HEAVEN and where it's located, and why you should believed in it while no solitary mortal in this sphere that ever bysatnder the so-called place?

I wonder what this has to do with the question at hand about the SEVEN EARTHS of the Quran (Sura 65:12). It's not up to me to explain in any epigrammatic manner the location of 'heaven' - for the term 'heaven' is used to mean various things to different people.

My query is not about 'heaven', but rather about the SEVEN EARTHS in the Quran. If you have real answers to that, and can locate them for me, please do so. If you don't, please don't bother trying the impossible that your friends have tried and failed.
Religion / Re: Re: Will You Denounce Your Faith At Gun Point? by viaro: 10:15am On Apr 20, 2010
^^ Check this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-430053.0.html#msg5885749
Religion / Re: Show Me The Autheticity Of Your Bible by viaro: 10:13am On Apr 20, 2010
chakula:

@vairo,

i lined you among the learned xtians but you disappionted me cos you failed to answer my question which i have been posted to you,but remember i responded over your inquiry even though you accepted not my respond as good answer to you,however for mine you have says nothing, why?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, that is because I don't accept your 'excuses' to be 'answers'. If you find real answers for Allah's remaining SIX EARTHS out of the SEVEN EARTHS claimed in the Quran, then I will provide answers to your questions. Anything less than that is merely your piddling.
Religion / Re: Show Me The Autheticity Of Your Bible by viaro: 12:08am On Apr 20, 2010
chakula:

@vairo,

and i am inqure from you have you ever witnessed the person that see the shape of Heaven and described it before you? Fine,even Jesus that you claim as your god have you see him during his life time and all his saying and with what he is coming with it,do you accepted it?if yes why the contradictions full the book of jesus as i posted aboved, but you responded not and at the end you thrown me a question,what kind of knowledge do you have?please explain the below verses for me if you are not here for argueing,why these verses contradict each other?

viaro:

@chakula,

I will give you my answers as soon as you have found answers for what I posted in #103 above. Where are the remaining SIX EARTHS of Allah's creation since we know of only one earth?
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 9:44pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Might I ask exactly how it can happen in your view - by what process -

Please re-visit post #14 - I laid out my reference for whatever answers you may read from me on these matters.

Deep Sight:

Please answer in light of -

1. The fact of physical things having a specific dimensional construct which is at variance with the intangibility of a spiritual realm.

The 'spiritual realm' - what do you mean by that? I asked you certain questions about that in post #41, viz:

[list]
But if we are to take you on your idealism of ontological musings here, I would like to ask: what is the nature of the reality/realities that exist beyond space and time? And what would you ever mean by 'space' and 'time' in regards of spatial constructs? And in what dimensional continuum are you making your assertion that is nothing more than a conjuring of your own limited thinking?
[/list]

If you are positing therefore that "physical things having a specific dimensional construct which is at variance with the intangibility of a spiritual realm", what then is the nature of the 'intangibility of a spiritual realm' which makes it impossible for physical things to enter into such a realm?

It is not just stating that the spiritual realm is 'intangible' that helps your discourses - we have seen other things that are intangible as well but yet not spiritual. These other things are understood as regards their nature; but intangibility of their natures do not therefore mean that the 'physical' cannot 'enter' or experience them.

Deep Sight:

2. The fact of the functionalities of a physical body and that which it requires to subsist; e.g physical bodies need to breathe in other to survive.

Is there oxygen in spiritual realms to facilitate such?

The idea of functionailities is merely relative. If the question is a matter of a physical body being able to "enter" the intangible, I have addressed that already. And we cannot now begin to negotiate on this, because I noted the precise term you used in post #4:

[list]
Deep Sight:

Also I asked him this Question  -

“Again the very make of the physical body is designed to deal with a physical atmosphere – in all its functions. Do you really suppose such a body with such functionalities can enter into a realm said to be intangible?”
[/list]

And in post #14 where I quoted you as above, my answer was this:[list]
viaro: Indeed. I'm persuaded that the physical body can enter into the realm of the 'spiritual' (if that's what you meant by 'intangible').
[/list]

How they "subsist" is not something I can articulate here. Why? Because I do not know a definitive answer within physics, biology or chemistry that can explain such spiritual phenomena satisfactorily. So, instead of pretending to give answers that are beyond my grasp, I don't think it is beyond me to simply say I do not have all the answers.

That does not mean for one instance that I doubt what I have already affirmed. No, I do NOT doubt that a physical body can ENTER into the spiritual realm. Nor do I hold on to physicalism as definitive of all phenomena in all realities. Some might argue that all that we find in the physical world of time and space must by default be explained by physical laws on premises of physicalism. But what happens when anomalies occur, which are outside the laws of physics and inexplicable within the matrix of physicalism? There are a great many examples even within religion and spirituality - but I should not digress.

There - the physical indeed possibly can ENTER into the spiritual realm. It all depends on how you understand what is the 'spiritual realm' in its essence/real nature, before you begin to draw any inference within any meaningful ontology.
Religion / Re: 7,500 Online Shoppers Unknowingly Sold Their Souls by viaro: 9:14pm On Apr 19, 2010
^^


"By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions."

April fool! wink

The terms of service were updated on April Fool's Day as a gag, . . .
The company noted that it would not be enforcing the ownership rights, and planned to e-mail customers nullifying any claim on their soul
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 9:04pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

I believe we are clear; Gravity is non-matter.

I read it, and it seemed that I had anticipated you.

If you therefore take time to see how I have tried to compare your initial definition for 'intangible', what would you say about gravity then?

Agreed: 'gravity is non-matter' - and on that note, would we still say that gravity then is an example that qualifies under your definition of 'intangible' as -
Non-Material - lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen
. . yes??

Or, consider again:

Deep Sight:

When energy acts on physical things there can be physical movement or reactions of varied kinds and this may result in phenomena which may be classed as non-matter.

So, is energy also 'matter'? If you say yes, on what ontology would you be positing that?

But more important than that, I would ask: is energy also a "physical matter"?

In all this, I'm trying to bring you to just one fact: your definition of 'intangible', if taken as given from where you lifted it, simply does not go the distance. There are things which cannot be 'touched or seen', but which do not qualify as 'spiritual'.

That has been the simple point in all this, and for which I had impressed upon you to be specific. Your matter/physical/non-material/intangible etc. are still not helpful, if we just take for granted that we should look at what cannot be 'touched or seen' for the meaning of 'intangible' - and that again was why I have been concerned about the tautologies that appear in your arguments that have not been helpful.

Deep Sight:
So for heaven's sake items of non-matter ARE NOT what we refer to - as the thread title indicates we refer to the spiritual intangible.

Good - my point precisely. And that was why I have been waiting to see what you meant by the so-called 'spiritual intangible'.

Deep Sight:

We are looking at physical things as opposed to spiritual intangibles.

You should have said so and cleared all the meaningless tautologies. DeepSight, pardon me if I'm the sort of person who cannot take things for granted - especially when discussing with you. I don't mean any harm; but you are not helping your own cause if you cannot be clear and consistent in what you're arguing.

Deep Sight:

Non-matter are phenomena within the physical world caused by th interaction of physical things.

How does that square with the definition of 'intangible' which you gave?

Deep Sight:

So please stop confusing the issues.

I have not confused issues. If anything at all, I have consistently asked you to be clear, specific, and articulate, no?

Deep Sight:
At all events with all this hocus-pocus on definitions you are yet to address the core questions.

I proceed as soon as you remove your hocus-pocus from the thread, thanks.

Deep Sight:

stop moving around in tangential circles that dpo not address the question of this thread - namely

You don't understand yourself, nor the terms you use. That is why you are never set on dealing straight with issues at any time.

Deep Sight:

Can physical things dwelll in spiritual realms?

Have I not addressed that ALREADY?

Did you not quote me in post #4 where I said: "It is very conceivable for the material to enter into the spiritual or 'intangible'?!?

When I quoted you in post #14 on the same issue -

[list]
Deep Sight:

“. . . Do you really suppose such a body with such functionalities can enter into a realm said to be intangible?”
[/list]

. . . my answer followed immediately: 'Indeed. I'm persuaded that the physical body can enter into the realm of the 'spiritual' [size=14pt](if that's what you meant by 'intangible')[/size].'

How come you of all persons tend to be playing games as if this is all so new? From post #14 of this thread, I hinted that you are confused in the way you are using these terms, which was why I said "(if that's what you meant by 'intangible')" - because I knew that when you lift definitions on that term 'intangible', you will see your problem.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 8:29pm On Apr 19, 2010
^^^

viaro:

3. If anything, it seems that the definition is telling us that 'non-material' is defined by that which is not able to be touched or seen - and there are loads of things we know that qualify as being "not able to be touched or seen", and yet are NOT 'spiritual'.

4. Do you want examples?

(a) Can you "touch or see" gravity?

(b) Is gravity material or 'non-material'?

(c) Is gravity therefore tangible or intangible?

5. Please try and answer these questions - they may help you see why I have concerns that your terms are loosely applied and are spiralling into tautologies that are not helpful.

In noting these points, we see that considering something as merely 'intangible' does not necessarily mean you have grasped the 'spiritual', or been able to convey your context clearly. This is all the more important if we consider that you already made this statement:

Deep Sight:

I regard it as irrational, especially if one reflects on what it means to state - "immaterial" or "intangible" realm.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 8:24pm On Apr 19, 2010
Since you don't get it, let me show the reason why I have been asking you to be articulate.

1. You lifted this definition -

Deep Sight:

Well since you ask for a definition of "intangible" I lift from the Encarta Online Dictionary -

Intangible - (Adj) Non-Material - lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen.

2. That definition assumes that 'intangible' includes such qualities as "non-material", and the hyphen ( - ) seems to serve as an "explanation" to 'non-material', viz: 'lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen'.


3. If anything, it seems that the definition is telling us that 'non-material' is defined by that which is not able to be touched or seen - and there are loads of things we know that qualify as being "not able to be touched or seen", and yet are NOT 'spiritual'.

4. Do you want examples?

(a) Can you "touch or see" gravity?

(b) Is gravity material or 'non-material'?

(c) Is gravity therefore tangible or intangible?

5. Please try and answer these questions - they may help you see why I have concerns that your terms are loosely applied and are spiralling into tautologies that are not helpful.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 8:15pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

^^^ You know very well that the term "non-matter" has a specific scientific definition and has nothing to do with this discourse, so please lets stay with the issues.

I know that 'non-matter' has a specific definition (scientific nonetheless, yes) - and when you mentioned "physics", you seemed to be asking for the same scientific applications to the same issues we are discussing. Do you want to throw science out altogether, or you are feeling it won't help you at all?

This was why I pointed out this:

viaro:

Hang on, these tautologies are not helping. It's far easier and coherent to say simply 'matter', for it is common knowledge that "Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made" (wikipedia) - unless, of course, you want to tell us about 'non-physical matter' that you may know about.
viaro:

. . . so, would it be wrong to understand your 'non-physical' to be indicative of 'non-matter'?

If then you're complaining about "non-matter", please give me examples to reference your "non-physical", since you highlighted what could be observed in PHYSICS.

Thanks.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 8:10pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Wow. You are really drawing this diversion out aren't you?

Please answer the question - that's all. I'm asking for the umpteenth time to keep to issues and keep it simple, rather than irrelevant remarks - unless you want again to descend into ramblings and . . . you know.

Deep Sight:

Your question -

Please let me know precisely what you are dealing with when you mention stuff like "non-physical" - is that synonymous with 'non-matter' or not?

My answer -

. . . . that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter.

Thus in this context what is not physical is not material - because by "physical," we refer to matter, material things, the material world.

Its simple enough Viaro.

Why did it take you sooo long to answer a simple question, DeepSight?

Your ontology is deeply flawed - and I showed why already:

1.   Your terms are loosely applied.

2.   I requested you to be articulate by distinguishing between what you meant by 'physical matter' and 'non-physical'.

3.   I went on to outline them and asked if what I had distinguished resonated with you; but you kept emphasising the 'physical' and evaded the question of 'non-physical' viz "non-matter".

4.   I had anticpated you on that, which was why I noted earlier: "unless, of course, you want to tell us about 'non-physical matter' that you may know about". Did you answer to that? Or what am I to make from your dodging that question?

5.  You refer to BOTH 'physical matter' AND 'non-physical' and all I requested was that you be AWARE that while your terms are loosely applied, there are "specific reference" types to these things - and all I wanted from you was to be specific.

6.  Why be specific? because when you consider examples of 'non-matter', your definition of "intangible" because meaningless here.

7.  Now please consider why your responses have been quite out of place and simply untenable. If you don't like to, there's no quarrel there - because I cannot "carry on" or proceed on terms which are loosely applied in your views.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 7:53pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Well it seems to me you are looking for a way to dodge the very simple questions I raised.

I defined "Intangible"

I defined matter by saying that I refer to that which is physical.

What more would you have me say?

If it will help let me add that which wikipedia says - "Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made."

I hope we can proceed on that.

DeepSight, what have you said about "non-matter"?

I asked you a question on that - why are you evading it yet and hastily concluding I was dodging anything in yours?

If you don't want to discuss, please say so - and I will yet leave you.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 7:37pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Viaro, I don't know where you are going with these.

I would have thought that my words were simple and clear enough.

I hope you are not trying to lead me into a whirlpool of endless definitions: because you asked me to define "intangible" - and I did.

Now you are asking me to define "physical."

The definition of "physical" is well known to you, so please lets make progress and not start definition games.

Thanks.

I am not leading you into definition games. I also stated my reasons why I needed you to be clear - because you are using terms very loosely and articulating absolutely nothing; for which I gave examples. You acknowledged that you are aware of the loose use of these terms, and rather than proceed along such lines, I needed to be clear from you. Is that not acceptable, and why?

Please let me know precisely what you are dealing with when you mention stuff like "non-physical" - is that synonymous with 'non-matter' or not? Within the matrix of whatever ontology you may wish to apply you terms, please be clear and articulate so we don't go back and forth unnecessary.

If you are not going to be distinct, I don't see what use there is in attending you further.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 7:24pm On Apr 19, 2010
^^ Infact, DeepSight, following my rejoinder above, I'd be interested in what you understand as 'physical'.

You make reference to the 'physical' as that which may tend to being 'observable in physics' - in which case, we should not forget your assertion that, 'that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter'. What exactly are your criteria for the 'physical'/'matter', since you're projecting 'physics' into these issues?
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 7:20pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

I think its simple enough to say that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter.

Okay.

Deep Sight:

Note that not even the finest forms of matter, such as light particles, waves, etc are exempt: they all qualify as part of the physical world and are observable in physics. They are not spiritual, but physical.

Hang on. On what basis are you distinguishing between 'physical' and 'spiritual'? If you say qualify any entity or phenomenon as 'physical' on the basis of being 'observable in physics', does that which is not observable in physics therefore fall into the categorization of 'spiritual'?

The reason I ask this is that your reference is not clear at all. That was why I asked you to please make your point as regards the distinctions I presented between your 'physical' (ie., matter) and 'non-physical' (ie. non-matter) - how do you stand in that reference?
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 6:48pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

As opposed to physical matter.

Hang on, these tautologies are not helping. It's far easier and coherent to say simply 'matter', for it is common knowledge that "Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made" (wikipedia) - unless, of course, you want to tell us about 'non-physical matter' that you may know about.

The distinction is quite necessary; it's either you're dealing with 'matter' in the sense that it refers to what is termed 'physical'; or you want to deal with the antithesis, which some might conceptualise as 'non-physical' - in which case they are thinking of "non-matter".

I beg your indulgence, DeepSight - does that distinction resonate with you?

Just to be clear: do you acknowledge and accept the distinction as applicable in your views?

___________

If the distinction resonates with you and is applicable to your discourses, then I might ask by this:

Deep Sight:

By Intangible I refer to the non-physical.

. . . so, would it be wrong to understand your 'non-physical' to be indicative of 'non-matter'?
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 6:32pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Viaro -

Well since you ask for a definition of "intangible" I lift from the Encarta Online Dictionary -

Intangible - (Adj) Non-Material - lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen.

That's okay - I could also lift definitions here and there; but what sense would it make for your tautologies? The point is that I observe you've been using that (and other) word(s) very loosely, which is why it has become needful for you to give us a working reference for what you mean.

For instance, other sources on 'intangible' say:

(a)  'incapable of being perceived by the senses especially the sense of touch' -
(Concise English Dictionary)

(b)  'that exists but that is difficult to describe, understand or measure:
The old building had an intangible air of sadness about it
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

From these two examples, it is obvious that people use the term 'intangible' quite loosely and also in specific reference.

The issue, however, is what you make of the concept of 'spiritual realm' viz-a-viz your notion of 'intangible'. The direct opposite of that term ('intangible') would therefore be 'tangible'. Hence, if we understand the 'tangible' to be corporeal; we would understand the 'intangible' in your instance to be 'incorporeal', no? I ask this for confirmation only, since I don't want to risk misconstruing what you're on about.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 6:14pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

I had also said these earlier in the thread -

Please don't jump trails - it really does not matter now what you are reposting from what you said earlier.

Deep Sight:
You see, this is downright comical.

If you want to discuss, please keep your invectives to yourself. We would like to deal with issues - free from all such tendencies that degenerate into unpleasant exchanges.

Deep Sight:

That;s because the physical is like a vessel for the intangible.

The Physical cannot "enter" the intangible because the very definition of intangibility means that there is no "space" in the physical sense whereat a physical thing may "enter" into intangibility.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. HOW do you know that the physical cannot enter the intangible? And how do you know that the intangible means there is no "space" in the physical sense?

It seems to me that you're jumping into hasting conclusions that are personal to you and have absolutely no foundation ontologically or existentially. Please demonstarte to us HOW you know anything about those conclusions in your statement above.

Deep Sight:
That is why we have to shed our physical bodies at death to enter the spiritual realm.

Makes sense?

No, it does not make any sense - as explained above and waiting for your answers to those two questions.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 6:08pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Inesqor/ Viaro –

Consider this.

God is a self-existent being existing beyond all concepts of time and space.

A Self-Existent entity exists in and of itself.

For this reason God is very well understood to be immaterial – that is – he is not a physical material being.

This is enshrined thoroughly in most religions and is supported by any discerning philosophical ontology of God.

For this reason it is absolutely inconceivable regardless of anything written in any ancient text – that the uncaused Cause should be conceived as existing within a physical human body in a realm already said to be intangible.

Dude, I will reserve that quote as appears there - nothing edited. I know why I'm saying this, because sometime soon we shall see how you are actually plotting a skewed graph about the very issues you wish to discuss.

Deep Sight:

This really amazes and amuses me. What is intangibility?

I guess that is the question you have to answer yourself, since you proposed an ontology and existential approach that has been your own plank of operation. I'm interested in your answer; and should you skip it, I would then ask it of you again.

Deep Sight:

How can we coherently insist that a physical material tangible human body is existing in a realm that is intangible?

Is that not a severe contradiction in terms?

There is a lot that is wrong with your tautology. Please explain your terms and keep it simple.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 6:01pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Yes, I have been quite expressive in this thread I must admit.

But I directed my expressions against what I saw as unspeakable statements.

Anyhow, you are yourself the master of invectives, and for my part if i have been scathing, I am sorry to all and sundry unreservedly.

'Quite expressive' . . ?? Oh c'mon man - you have been expressly expressing your lies up and down. Didn't you notice? The one thing that has come out again is your inability to own up to your lies - that is just so hideous! grin
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 5:58pm On Apr 19, 2010
Marlbron:

The whole point of joining the religion thread is for us to learn from each other in many ways. Sometimes you win some and loose some, but I am not happy about the slanging match between Viaro and Deepsight. Can we call a truce and focus on the discussions?

I entered this thread to discuss; and I made clear that if DeepSight was not ready to discuss, then I did not wish to pursue these banters of insolence with him (see post #56). If he had let it at that, there would be no need of his "attributing" his unfounded lies to me or anyone for statements I NEVER EVER made - and for which I requested that he quote me directly. Truce is good; but how is a truce managed or achieved with a deep.liar running errands up and down this thread?

Marlbron:

Both of you offer great contributions from your different perspectives, but I have an issue when people develop animosity towards each other from their laptops or desktops, when they hardly know each other. You both have overflogged your points, so lets move on, shall we? , And by the way, no winner, no looser!

Go back and see: who has been asking that we "move on" in this thread?
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 5:50pm On Apr 19, 2010
^^^
Deep Sight:

^^^ Read again please. I said I have animosity towards SUGGESTIONS from a theist that God is in a physical body in heaven.

The suggestion is just crazy and i REPEAT that i have strong animosity towards it.

I dont know you Viaro, and have no reason to have a personal problem with you.

I read it, and I have observed that you actually have animosity towards theists for what you cannot agree with them on issues which your fundamentalist deism cannot accept. You have used invectives directly on people in this thread, that tells me that you are expressing animosity towards those who you vilify.
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 5:45pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Thank you. However I need to state that I have no animosity towards any person.

I have definite animosity towards suggestions from a Theist that GOD dwells in heaven in a physical human body.
Its simply insane. I cant get over it.

Hehehe. . . you're actually illiterate - confirmed now. grin

First, you have no animosity towards any person; but then you actually have animosity towards a theist! Might I add - you actully have animosity towards SEVERAL theists here, hahaha! grin

Dude, stop deluding yourself on top your lies. You are growing grey hair on your duplicity, and that is bad publicity for your OOI. grin
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 5:44pm On Apr 19, 2010
see below [size=16pt]ˇˇˇ[/size].
Religion / Re: Physcical Bodies Dwelling In Spiritual Heavens - Viaro, Lets Chat It Through. by viaro: 5:41pm On Apr 19, 2010
Deep Sight:

Viaro -

Son, no amount of invectives will deliver you on this one.

Dude, wake up! Are you pleading innocence on the fact that you have used invectives to top up your lies already and still counting? I'm not the one needing 'deliverance' - you lied, have continued to lie, and are yet seeking all sorts of excuses to wangle out of your deceptive drama! What a coward you truly are!

Deep Sight:

You have made statements which are appalling - and rather than address them (I verily suspect that you are not able to address them) - you waste much time screeching about quotes which have already been given to you five times over.

I have asked you to quote me directly so I can address them. As long as you are not able to quote me on any such statements which I never made at any time, would it not be a world of your idiocy to ask me to address what are not my statements?

Deep Sight:

I have no inclination to tolerate such codswollop as you have offered me on this thread: boldly announcing as you have that a self-existent and transcendental Uncaused Cause of all existence dwells in heaven, an immaterial realm, in a physical human body.

Ha-a! I knew you can't contain yourself. Did you not say that you will not venture back to that issue? Or you actually posted the 'case closed' so you can again lie to your adulators? Great liar, stay focused - you've lost the plot already.

Where are the direct quotes of statements which you LIED in attributing them to me for the ONLY TWO statements I have presented since post #67? Quote my "direct statements" and let's see - or leave us further entertained by your duplicity. grin

Deep Sight:
Although that boggles the mind, it is scarcely as terrible as your recent declaration above that physical material things may dwell in immaterial intangible realms and that this does not mean that such realms are not immaterial.

Please where are your lies in my "direct statements", mr deep.liar?

Deep Sight:
I repeat: you are a professional clown.

Hehe . . . is that the best of your invectives, or you've run out of steam already since you can't wash your lies for many posts running now? grin

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (of 85 pages)

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 161
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.