₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
Viaro - does this not prove what i have been screaming since:

That - there is nothing like "nothingness" anywhere in existence. It does NOT exist.

I'm sorry, but it does not 'prove' what you had reiterated about 'nothingness'. The thread itself is about creation or existence ex nihilo - something emerging from 'nothing': not that anything came out of nothing completely on its own, but rather that creation itself came into 'existence' ex nihilo, or the argument to the contrary completely removes 'creation' from the picture and therefore maintains what it yet cannot even begin to argue.

Is the word "nothingness" not even a direct contradiction of the word "existence?"

Dear sir, it depends entirely on the context of the one who uses that term, 'nothingness'. I cannot just slap on an agreement with your unqualified statement there, especially because you have argued a catachresis that is still unclear on this issue in the 'oneness of infinity' thread.

Be that as it may, 'nothingness' (depending context)  may not actually be a direct contradiction of 'existence'. In some uses of the former term ('nothingness'), it tends to mean 'empty, unfilled space', and no one in their right minds would begin to argue that 'space' does not exist (even if that space is empty). This is akin to Leucippus' philosophy where "nothing" has a reality attached to it, such that there could be no motion without a 'void' (for the 'void' [defined as 'not being'] is necessary for motion to occur).

On the other hand, some may argue more directly for the other use of that same term ('nothingness') as meaning 'the complete lack of existence' - which I suppose may have been your own intended usage? So, tied in either with the topic of this thread or that of the 'Oneness of Infinity' thread, if 'nothingness' be taken to mean the complete lack of existence, it should not even feature in your premises at all, or you would still have insurmountable problems to deal with. In this regard, you might want to see one of the direct and simple cases for the nebulous 'nothing/nothingness' concept in Wikipedia:

[list]

However, "nothingness" has been treated as a serious subject worthy of research for a very long time. In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed.

[/list]

Yes, DeepSight, it is in the context of 'not-being' that is most problematic for researchers in cosmology and 'origins science'. I cannot overemphasize this point about context, for you cannot maintain that 'nothingness' does not exist in the face of other disciplines and concerns:

In mathematics, "nothing" does not have a technical meaning. The number zero is often used interchangeably with the term. It could also be said that a set contains "nothing" if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. In other words, the word "nothing" can be an informal term for an empty set.

In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense either. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.

Does this mean that 'nothing/nothingness' does not exist? No, absolutely not. It simply means that the term delivers various meanings for various researchers, so that when they speak about 'nothing', that sphere may lack specific properties while having other properties and yet within context still be understood as 'nothing'.

But in this thread, don't get it all confused with 'existence', because you're arguing vacantly on another ground entirely in the assertion that 'nothingness does not exist'. My first question to you on that would be: in what context or what grounds do you make that assertion?

As for me, I'm not in my bedroom at the moment. But wherever I may be, let me say something on this interesting development on 'heaven'.

Deep Sight:
I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

No problem with that; but even though it is one same word in Hebrew, it does not necessarily convey the same meaning or sphere in context - and I think that was what marvellous Maven was trying to point out to thee.

However, let's see the strain of your argument:
(a)

Go back to your concordance and you will see the reference number H8064 (from your quote i believe we are using the same concordance - Strong's?) - is the same referrence number for ALL references to "heaven" in the Old Testament. Accordingly it is clear that you cannot single out one verse and insist that it refers only to the physical heavens when the same word is the very word used to refer to the spiritual heavens in the Old Testament.

(b)

Thus your statement that he did not enter heaven is nothing but your own speculation without an ounce of proof. For me: it is clear that he did rise to a spiritiual "heaven" in the context of that verse for at least two reasons: (1) - What was the need for the "Chariot of fire and horses of fire" if he was merely going into the phjysical heavens? (2) - He was NEVER seen again. Accordingly he had departed the physical world in that instant.

It seems that you are forcing a narrow meaning and context in that passage for Elijah. To this end it appears that was why Mavenb0x had referred you to Hebrews 11 in post #46 above - to the intent that you may see the context she made earlier in Elijah's case, viz: "No, sir. Elijah did not go to dwell in the place of God's abode" (here).

The one thing I may observe here (and agree with you on) is that there just is no sense in maintaining that Elijah could not have gone into 'heaven' and rather argue for 'SKY'. No, no and thrice holy NO! The word in 2 Kings 2:11 is simply 'HEAVEN' (shâmayim  /  shâmeh - שׁמה  /  שׁמים), and not 'SKY' (shachaq - שׁחק).

The distinction appears in several references of the OT, but let just one example suffice: Deuteronomy 33:26 - "There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven (shâmayim  /  shâmeh - שׁמה  /  שׁמים) in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky (shachaq - שׁחק)."

What is viaro yapping about? This simply: Elijah went up by a whirlwind into HEAVEN (not 'sky') according to 2 kings 2:11.

Okay, that said, let us also observe that marvellous Maven's gist resonates with me, which is that "Elijah did not go to dwell in the place of God's abode". This is clear from the Hebrews 11 references she gave to that end; and we can further observe that there are indeed spheres about or in heaven. Again, just one example should suffice: 1 Kings 8:27 - "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?" In the NT, we read of "the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2) which could be ancillary to the point. It is in this instance that one cannot just presume from 2 Kings 2:11 that Elijah arrived at God's abode when he was taken up into heaven. Rather, he is metaphorically in 'Abraham's bosom', expression used for the place of the blessed until the Day of the Resurrection.

When we read of a text, perhaps we need to think carefully on context and deixis (as we all know) - which, in this case for 'HEAVEN' does not mean that it could be given just one simplistic meaning that is stretched completely in disregard of the spheres identified in the body of the OT (and even the NT for that matter).

_____________________

But thank you for this, DeepSight:

Deep Sight:

(1) what is 'genuine spirituality'?

The search for truth, and the application of the inner being - the spirit - towards transcendental harmony.

I don't want to be tedious, but I shall tuck that away as well until you and I enter into rigorous discourse on these things. I tend to be inclined from the strain of your posts that you argue often for the 'natural', in which case all that could be understood are merely 'natural' and hardly anything could be supernatural. In which case, I would be looking at what you tend to make of 'spirit' within that matrix. Please not now, just observe and leave it off until later, yes? Thanks.

Oh c'mon, amico mio! How do you advertise your goods if you peg it at a premium? 99% at a start (even in this economic crunch) is bad advertising. Start as low as 25% (plus 8% VAT and additional 15% for later payers), and I'm sure the conference here would be comfy enough. Seriously now.



Anyhow, let's return to the interesting topic.
*(I was thinking that the Religion Board should have a thread for people who want to laugh things off, so that threads are not juggled sideways like this. I'll try again sometime - as long as we aim to laugh and not take things too personal - what say our pallies?)

Hallo the_seeker,
[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=363758.msg5346976#msg5346976 date=1263905000]this leads us to the ultimate question. Can enery be considered as nothing? Take for example a black hole where matter is compressed to a singularity. Such that what is left is a 'gravitational shadow' of the original matter. Can we then call a black hole 'nothing'?[/quote]Well, it all depends on what exactly what anyone means by 'nothing' - what does it mean to the speaker/observer (in this case, you) personally?

Even then, let's be careful here what we tend to describe. There's a difference here between processes and entities. If you take either or both energy and black hole to be processes, you're not describing 'nothing' but actually talking about a process in existence that brings about other phenomena. However, if you take either or both terms (energy and black hole) to be entities, there again you're not pointing to 'nothing' but to certain things within existence, no?

Googler:
If you mean objective in scientific terms, there are no mechanisms. That is why they are said to be supernatural. They cannot be proved materially although their manifestations can be felt in material world and these are then subject or amenable to different interpretations. There seems to be some agreement that you have to develop your perceptive powers, not intellectual but intuitive, to actually see things for yourself. It is said that people with highly developed spirits see things others can't. That is why people join esoteric schools of thought such as Rosicrucianism, esoteric Christianity (Christian mysticism), sufi (Islamic mysticism), Kaballah (Jewish mysticism), Vajrayana Buddhism, the Fourth Way, Eckancker, Grail Message, etc. There is no doubt that students of followers of these schools gain "experiences" which they believe to be genuine. But there are naysayers who dismiss such experiences as "self-hypnotism".

^^Quite refreshing to read.

BTW, Googler, welcome to the forum and enjoy.

Pastor AIO:
I don't mind an arbitrary definition. If it is made and stated at the beginning of our discussion then I'll be happy with it. Then we can talk till the cows come home and we'll all know what we are talking about.

@PastorAIO, I most certainly concur. The problem with this, though, is that such a tendency flies in too many directions and all gist becomes too quickly lost - just like you again observed:

What I can't stand is undefined terms that allow us to shifts the goalposts here there and everywhere.

Alas! Isn't that the compromise that most materialists and naturalists seek?

What makes demons and angels supernatural entities?

Probably because they tend to not occur within the matrix of what the materialist/physycialist/reductionist has taken to be the 'natural world'?

Hi toneyb,

toneyb:
I believe the OP was just asking a simple question which is if the so called "supernatural" entities like demons, angels, gods, satan etc were in existence how can they be objectively detected? Is there any mechanism by which we can objectively measure the existence of such entities and conclude that the supernatural is real?

Yes, we saw all that. Just to add to what PastorAIO was quick to note: if we don't know the meaning of 'natural', how do we proceed then to talk about the 'natural world' alas Wikipedia's simplistic and yet circular definition? It just seems that we take far too many things for granted and do not care to think carefully - perhaps due to a commitment to a default position on the subject already?

Deep Sight:
Wow, this is the first time on this forum any person has agreed with or seen the absolute simplicity of this description of God! Where is Viaro?

Bro, viaro is just seeing this, so I answer: 'present sir!'

That someone agrees with you on those descriptive terms or clauses does not mean at all that it is novel. Sometime in another thread I hinted that I'm quite aware of the Deist's use of that qualifier (oneness of infinity) to describe 'God' - this is just descriptive, as are any other that adherents of other worldviews may so describe their concept of any deity. Googler simply concurred on that note with 'I like this one', I think, as a matter of preference - but is the 'oneness of infinity' the "absolute simplicity" of the description of God? You think you got it all wrapped up so tightly and neatly, eh? _{now where did I keep my whip??}

Deep Sight:
Yes, Maven, Viaro and i are looking into that business. I will be the treasurer.

Viaro my old nemesis friend will make a great Lead Pastor with his vocabulary he will confuse lead the clients congregation into parting with their consultancy fees tithes.

Yes, when I heard the role of tithes that viaro would be playing, I quickly came here! Special envelopes earmarked for that purpose are to be printed. . but we start at 25% (please don't ask me why - viaro just takes it for granted)!!

Pastor AIO:
You're making me lose my voice without even using it.

Now, that would not be an example of 'natural', would it? Just kidding.

Anyway guys, it's great that we first have to understand what is meant by the terms 'natural', 'nature' and perhaps 'naturalism', before we could then contextually proffer definitions for 'supernatural'. Indeed, arbitrary definitions of any of those terms would not be sufficient, especially as we cannot account for all phenomena in existence (whether known and understood or not).

Interestingly, shades of meanings to terms emerge as more questions are asked. The idea that 'nature' is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world (Wikipedia) is quite circular and reductionistic - and I share the same disagreement with PastorAIO on that. Bearing in mind that existence itself involves not only the substance of anything, but also causes, processes and occurences, then shades of meanings to particular terms become as important as any consideration of anything at all in this subject.

Shades of meaning? Yes, indeed - for which reason even physicalists now seek (a) more rigorous definition(s) of 'nature' and 'naturalism'. Yet, besides the 'supernatural', there are terms describing other phenomena that we might need to consider, such as [i]preter[/i]natural and [i]supra[/i]natural. Certainly, many people confuse these terms as well; but we don't need to. Whatever terms we may use would depend on context.

Pastor AIO:
Can anything fade back into Nothing?

I don't know, depending on what is meant as 'nothing'. I reckon you probably were meaning inexistence in common parlance? But even then, 'fade' would not be the appropriate idea of an entity becoming inexistent from existence.

Can a system consisting of an electron and a positron fade back into nothing?

Lol, but what examples would there be of such a system? Basically, it is understood that 'when a low-energy positron collides with a low-energy electron, annihilation occurs'; even so, the 'annihilation' does not indicate 'inexistence' but rather existence of something - 'the production of two or more gamma ray photons' (see electron-positron annihilation).

Deep Sight:
It does not hurt that along the line we see that the presumed starting point is actually false: that only helps us understand the self-existent nature of the ultimate reality - God.

That's good to know, and it would be some substance to consider in the other thread as we progress.

Deep Sight:
I stated in the other thread that we start from the premise - "zero is nothing" - only as a hypothetical start-point: and in addressing it, we realize in the chain of premises that it is actually not nothing.

Which is why you need to strike out #1 of your initial premises up there. As soon as I saw that, I knew you would sooner than later run into serious problems.

The first premise is only a grounder to start with a line of reasoning which ends in proving that there is nothing like nothingness.

I could pluck up a number of your quotes showing how you tried to qualify 'nothing/nothingness' into 'something', and the example in my penultimate reply exemplifies the point. Sometimes, certain ideologies need to be explicated extensively, sometimes concisely. Where we are trying to carry along our readers, we need indeed to logically set our our axioms, premises, ideas - and build up from start point (whereever that point of reference may be). However, to start out with a premise you intend to controvert is not (IMO) a good approach.

I don't see the problem, friend.

Oh shooks, man! There is a huge problem there.




_____________________________

P.s: please can you teach me how you write words and turn them into links. I like that, but i dont know how to do it, thanks.

Just the same way you link a word/statement in php forums, I guess. I learnt by clicking on the 'quote' botton when replying, then I tried to see how posters link pages. There's an example in another thread where I think this is explained - Visual Tutorials For Nairaland Newbies. But, of course, I could illustrate it offline from Nairaland, say by email or something, if further assistance required. Cheers.

Mavenb0x:
Thread resurrected! People, can anything come out of nothing?

Deep Sight:
^^^ I thought i was explaining that in the oneness of infinity thread.

Deep Sight:
Now since nothingness does not exist, the question is moot as all things "come out of" somethingness - and the ultimate soomethingness is the self-existent reality which needs no creator - that is - God himself.

There is a reason why I started this thread to discuss existence of the cosmos ex nihilo especially from a philosophical perspective. Even so, it does not appear that even cosmologists have been able to dream up any amazing theory that scratches the surface of that enigamtic question in a convincing manner. But any further thoughts would be welcome, even if DeepSight does so in his own thread.

Deep Sight:
But let me drop this thought - which i have told Viaro before - there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist anywhere.

That is a most quaint statement, DeepSight, especially with the emphasis -

Nothingness is what the word implies. . . it is "nothing!"

Hang on, mate. . . this is the most serious problem viaro has with you. Since 'nothingness' both does not exist and is equal to "nothing", how come you have been sweating to transform that same 'nothing' into 'SOMETHING'? Are you not the same chap transforming and transmuting "nothingness" into all sorts of catachresis?

Let's remind you:

First, your premises from the other thread:

Deep Sight: Premise 1: Zero is nothingness

   Premise 2: Nothingness, being EMPTY by definition, cannot be said to have a limit.

   Premise 3: Nothingness is therefore infinite.

   Premise 4: Infinity connotes Eternity

   Premise 5: Eternity connotes Time to infinity

   Premise 6: Time therefore exists as inseparable factor of Zero.

First step Conclusion: Zero is in fact not really nothing: as it is imbued with time, infinity, and thus eternity.

Please look again:

      *  'Zero is nothingness'
      ~  qn: (does 'zero' then exist if 'nothingness' does not exist anywhere?)

      *  'Nothingness is therefore infinite'
      ~  qn: (how do you reconcile that with your catachresis that 'nothingness' does not exist anywhere)

      *  'Zero is in fact not really nothing'
      ~  qn: (which translates into a linear taradiddle of the first premise, no?)

You see what I'm saying? First you confuse us all (pity those with soda and whatever). . . then you conflate your premises, and then end up concluding magically that all this yada-yada is supposed to be a concatenation of what exactly - the oneness of infinity or affinity??


DeepSight  my pal, relax. . . viaro has news for you when you wake up. All this taradiddle of affinity is not going nowhere when I start to unravel your mystery.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=381774.msg5340787#msg5340787 date=1263827854]My post are not meant to offend anyone. If you want to see offensive posts go and see what jcross, toba et al are doing in the muslim section. My posts are more of queries thank attacks[/quote]Yeah right! That's why you can hardly resist posting your 'queries' until you've embellished and qualified them with calumny, no?

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=381774.msg5338529#msg5338529 date=1263806224]toba, the origin of this comment is obvious. I have been kicking your a** all over NL and exposing your confusion and hyporisy all over the place. Your lack of intelligence has made you very easy meat for me. Al least viaro and the likes have taken a stand, even though they resort of lies and nonsensical analogies to defend it. You on the other hand are the most confused individual on NL.
You and i agree that Jesus is not God. But beacuse of your hyporisy to chose to insult me and side viaro who believes that he is God. So who is confused here?

It is quiite interesting that Toba believes Jesus is not God and not to be worshiped wheras viaro thinks Jesus is God. But somehow they both agree because they both subscribe to the same sickness called christianity[/quote]You know what, mate? I like my own 'sickness' far better than your Islam, so let me be. Your problem is that muhammad in your own Quran could not deny that Christians are learned people (Q. 5:82) while at the same time touts your arabic Muslim folks as 'the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy' (Q. 9:97) - so I can understand why you're so restless when discussing with us and assuming that Christianity is a 'sickness'. No worries. . . it just tells me that your type just hates to be educated.

Yes, Christians may disagree on the Deity of Christ and still get along - there's no denying that. I also know that many Muslims hold divergent views about 'allah' in Islam even though those same people are Muslims. If your own sickness sickens you, it still does not change the fact for me about what John 5:23 says.

Hi Deep Sight,

Deep Sight:
Let me be clear: the fact that i use numbers as a logical mirror for explaining the existence of God does not mean that i believe God to be numbers.

I didn't infer that at all. Infact, in another thread where you had started out in your attempt to set forth the existence of God by mathematical imperatives, I very early noted that such a maths does not 'prove' anything about His existence or non-existence.

God is a THE self-existent reality that is truly real: everything else is a reflection of some sort: God is the Living Light, the I AM THAT I AM - THE TRUTH.

Okay, I shall note that and tuck it away for relecant discussions.

But if i were to speak for the generality of deists or the deist worldview (of which there are many - there are even christian-deists) - i would simply say that God is the almighty transcendental being that created all that exists: his existence can be logically inferred, but he remains incomprehensible and inapproachable almost in the sense that the agnostic may suggest. Most deists reject religion.

That again will resurface at an appropriate discourse. Cheers.

Mavenb0x:
LOL viaro you beat me to it!

Hehe. . at least for once! I 'saw' your fingers getting ready to type, and I only 'peeped' into your mind and read off what you intended (just the same way you used to 'decode' my and Krayola's hide-outs) - and bingo! I posted b4 thee!

Deep Sight:
That seems to me to be entirely beside the point, aside from reeking extensively of a materialistic and ritualistic mentality that is entirely at odds with genuine spirituality.

As an asides -

(1) what is 'genuine spirituality'?

(2) And if your use of that clause is askew from the meaning others hold of it, what would be the value of your comments?

(3) Does the 'spirituality' of Deism have to be the same for other worldviews?

(4) If not, on what basis then do you proceed to adjudicate on 'genuine spirituality' for a worldview that is NOT YOURS?

darkman200:
there are too many people that are claiming to be Christians but have the heart of the devil, they are mean, wicked, selfish, greedy and callous.

Perhaps due to the fact that they're feeding their 'flesh'?

Thanks Mavenb0x.

Mavenb0x:
I do not think timelessness is infinite time. Infinite time is eternity, but timelessness means entirely OUTSIDE of time. I hope you understand my point.

I understand your point, and I could go on to argue even more profoundly about what we humans often infer by that nebulous word 'time'. We just take many things for granted and that is perhaps why many readers may not follow easily enough.

However, for the sake of simplicity and to carry our readers along, we should not forget the threader (DeepSight) seems to be discussing his topic from a teleological perspecitive - in which case we may relax and not suffer ourselves to be too technical here. Consequently, in this regard we may excuse deep technicality and see the teleological connection and meaning of the terms eternity, timelessnes and infinite time as pointing to just about the same thing within the context of the threader.

This does not mean that we take for granted the astute distinction that timelessness is 'the state of being unaffected by time', which I agree with you on that in post #67. We can't even begin to articulate an existence in 'timelessness' other than our believing that is the prerogative of 'God'. But it does mean that even in His transcendence, God exists within 'time' - or we would never have known or experienced Him.

Mavenb0x:

(2) But of course, 'zero' does not connote 'eternity' in so far as 'infinite time' is in view.

And that is MY POINT to DeepSight. I can say zero (nothingness) is to timelessness, what infinity is to eternity.

I'm just still wondering about DeepSight's transformation there, especially where he said that 'Zero is in fact not really nothing: as it is imbued with time, infinity, and thus eternity.' How did he infact work out that domain to arrive at that inference? What applicable examples do we see where that axiom holds any substance? On what basis then could anyone come to such an inference without a groundwork to closely follow? Hmm.

I was going to proceed along that line, but the fundamental statement that nothingness has eternal properties, is in itself, flawed, IMO!

Viaro, I suggest you take time to read my 2 previous posts (#73 and #75). Cheers.

I read them, right from #67. I'm still carefully going through this entire thread and related others just to get the gist of DeepSight's discourses.

toba:
@viaro.U dnt have to reply or attach relevance to any post of dis guy SEEKER. hes sick.I ve told him couple of times dat Xtians doesnt worship Jesus except God.D entire gospel of John4 explains how Jesus himself told d samarian woman to worship only God.Dis i posted for him,but his mental imbalanced nature will make him repeat xtians worship Jesus.Engage intellectuals like deepsight&olabowale.Not sme1 like seeker.Jesus is to be honoured&xtians pray through Jesus to God.John14:6

Thank you, Toba. I had considered the-seeker a mere chap seeking attention and looking in the wrong places. But just so I don't risk prejudging people, I gave him the benefit of doubt. True, Christians may have varying views of the Person of Jesus Christ, but Muslims also have very divergent views of allah in Islam. There is hardly any worldview where opinions are all the same. . . HARDLY ANY AT ALL. The one thing I shy away from is using every opportunity to castigate people of other religions, faiths or worldviews. I could discuss, but I hardly have the stomach for silly rants from twerps who act like they still suck their thumbs.

I should not like to jump on the thread with ripostes/rejoinders for now, but I'd like to make a preliminary observation, Mavenb0x.

Although there's been a warm discourse on zero, timeslessness, eternity and infinity/infinite, it seems to me that that way you tried to set forth your point on these concepts only points us back to the same thing in commonality. From the onset, it appears that while you disagreed with DeepSight, you infact argued to agree with him! Let's see -

Mavenb0x:
[color=#999900]I beg to differ: zero does NOT connote eternity.  [/color]

Zero connotes timelessness.

Eternity is infinite time.

Okay, you objected that 'zero' does NOT connote 'eternity'; but in the very next line you came back to admit that it actually does! How?

(1) Because eternity is also timelessness which in turn is simply infinite time.
In context of this thread, it would seem like the threader is dicussing these values teleologically, and so we may excuse for now that 'eternity', 'timelessness' and 'infinite time' are simply pointing to the very same thing, don't you think?

(2) But of course, 'zero' does not connote 'eternity' in so far as 'infinite time' is in view. The reason, IMO, is that one cannot make huge leaps from 'nothing' to 'infinite' - they are clearly worlds apart. More so, in mathematical terms at the basic level, we know that 'infinite/infinity' are not represented by |'0'| but rather by |'∞'|.

(3) Yet, there is an even greater problem in DeepSight's prose. How does he weave his thesis from 'nothingness' (|'0'|) through to 'eternity'? Just telling us to regard what he says as 'just-so' does not convey any understanding to anyone. There are questions to be asked; and one at this point is this: on what basis is one to assume that 'zero' = 'eternity'?

Deep Sight:
Yes, may I humbly proceed.

Nicely, yes.

But may I make a few extraneous remarks before doing so.

From the earliest days of one’s youth one was told – “God created everything,” The very natural question springing to one’s mind of course was – “Who created God?” or “Where did God come from?” It has often been said that any person who attempts to decipher the riddle – “who created God” or – “Where did God come from?” is simply toying with insanity. We were thus sternly adjured NOT to attempt the question – nay – not to even dare think about it.

I must say viaro has lived a very, very fortunate life. How? Because in my years of tutelage, I once pondered over that question - and when I asked my parents, there were no stern adjurations, remonstrances or 'killer' looks from those who entertained my question. Not that I even had any answers, but I asked that question all the same.

But I have always been of the persuasion that nature abhors a vacuum: I feel that humans would not have been given the faculty to ponder the question at all, if we were never intended to find the answer. Thus the absence of the answer, in the presence of the faculty to ponder the question, is a vacuum. This seems so self evident to me, that I have therefore made the pursuit of truth my chief calling in life, with the pursuit of understanding of the origin of all things as the epicentre of the quest.

I actually would have hoped that your chief calling in life was successful. How? For this simple reason, according to you: "Thus the absence of the answer, in the presence of the faculty to ponder the question, is a vacuum". I read along to see what answers you got/gave to that question. . . and was I surprised that you left another vacuum by not providing any answers. Why then muse on these things in the first place? Your answer? Here -

I say these things for one reason only: I want to make it clear before proceeding yet further that –

1. God’s existence, or shall I say – the “reality” of God is a deep mystery
2. It is not easy to articulate, even by a person who may have a faint glimmer into its meaning
3. Even when articulated, it may not be easy to grasp
4. And finally, the person attempting an articulation may well appear simply deranged!

Okay, and after stating your reason for all that, and yet leaving us a huge vacuum in the process, you flattered me with this -

I say this for you Viaro!

[size=14pt]Hahahaha!![/size]

Please excuse my guffaw . . I couldn't hold it back! I'm tempted to ask why you would single me out for that memorial speech? But that would be for another thread. So we don't derail, let's have your prose on the OOI. . . which seems to be ongoing. My observations between times will follow.

@Deep Sight,

There's just one thing I was hoping to ask you in your thread about the 'oneness of infinity'. It has to do with clear statement(s) about the Personality of your deistic god/God. I have tried to follow a few of your several discourses in attempts to persuade your enquirers about the same, but it seemed you were being far too abstract in identifying that same god/deity/God of the deist.

It is not so much a matter now about what arguments you lay out from the Christian worldview; but I'm quite interested in your own god/God. He/she/it is said to be a 'zero', 'nothingness', '0', 'infinity', and yet borrowing from the philosophers of yerter-times, you opine that this same he/she/it is the 'first cause', 'prime mover', or 'uncaused causer' of existence (or of all that exists).

Now, now, now. . these things are just floating around my head, so don't take these clichés and clauses as the final or exact quotes of your statements. Perhaps when the time comes, we shall take a look at the god of Deism - whether in your thread on the 'oneness of infinity' or another thread that may please you.

Cheers for now.

Deep Sight:

Besides, the Christian faith transcends logic - it is not constrained within the limits of logic.

Viaro, it might be more apt to state that spirituality transcends known logic.

For your statement may just as easily be hijacked by a Hindu person worshipping cows - in defense of this he may declare - "the hindu faith transcends logic!"

You might have a point there. But hang on a minute, mate. You understand that viaro is not a Hindu, and rather than make too broad a statement, I contained my initial axiom within the confines of my own experience and worldview - Christianity.

Certainly, spirituality is used to infer or adduce far too many things today that one may just have to be careful about a general statement with that word. If you ask some atheists who also use that word what exactly they mean, you might find that they don't mean to use that word in the way you and I commonly understand it.

Another thing is that the Hindu may not mean the same thing we understand by 'spirituality'; and since I don't understand Hinduism that deep enough to make any authoritative statement on that worldview, I would not be so polarised to make a broad statement as you suggested. That does not prevent the Hindu from hijacking the word and using it in his own worldview on just about the same things; but my comments were particularly in reference to my worldview.

Again, Hinduism is not a static religion, philosophy or worldview - it is dynamic. The reference in Hindu writ that 'cows are God' should be read within the context where that statement appears. Why? Because the one who made that statement was giving his own thought when he said 'I think'. Not all Hindus worship cows, and certainly not all Hindus hold cows as deities even though the bovine is sacred in their worldview.

Hi folks. I've been busy . . and so have some of you guys on this thread. But trust me, for some others, I might just reply even though comments directed to me were on previous pages. No matter.



[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=381774.msg5333516#msg5333516 date=1263733476]am i suprised? No! How could i be suprised by a guy who worships a jewish capentar as his God. Like deepsight said, what makes you better than the Hindu that worship cow.[/quote]Yes, as far as John 5:23 declares it, the very same honour that we render to the Father is what Jesus says viaro should render to the Son - and that is what I did today in Church as well. In hindsight, I'm sure DeepSight may not understand Hinduism that much, but he certainly would not cast his vote for the pedo Muhammad who was busy d[color=Black]ic[/color]king a 9 year old Aisha. Go figure.

Lol, let's give him all the time he needs. I'm sure the prose will turn out well, even if he might need to adjust and rescind on some of his premises.

akered:
A BELIEVER is someone who can believe what his brains tells him not to be true!! It is a peculiar frame of mind!! Learning how to suspend reason!! "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason"

Akeredolu, you're trying far too hard to place your atheism where it actually belongs. Faith does not eschew reason, regardless what fundamentalism may lead you to infer. Touting yourself a rationalist does not even cut it for you.

I noticed your first four posts on Nairaland were carbon copies of long thesis on tithes (first, second, third, and fourth). It seemed that after your ancillary claim to have contacted 3 rabbis in the L.A. area was exposed as a humiliating hoax that was rank-xeroxed from Ernest L. Martin, you lost your center of gravity so that your pretences of being 'Christian' have all eroded. You seemed to rather switch quickly from talking like a 'Christian' to clearly showing who you truly are - but did you have to try to LIE to make an impression? Did you have to show your own 'rationality' by first attempting to DECEIVE the public?

Perhaps that was your "peculiar frame of mind" - you didn't think about that one before "learning to suspend reason". But it's your world, so enjoy your "reason" (even if you had to deceive your readers).

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=381774.msg5332490#msg5332490 date=1263712556]are you not ashamed of the junk you posted? Typical response from an apparently smart guy trying to defend a hopless sensless dogma. I have noticed that this sickness called xtrianity has been gradually eroding your mental faculty.[/quote]It must have taken you eons to read through my reply and still found you were mentally challenged. Do I repeat it in madrassa language? But, of course, poor folks like you post typical responses like yours as firstaid to hide your low IQ.

nuclearboy:
@Viaro:

God forbid I get on your bad side. Chei! '

aboulia. linear tarradiddle. 'apeiron borborygmus' etc

What language dictionary should I download?

Hahahaha!!

Oh shooks! I once promised to 'behave' on my diction. . but here I am breaking the law.
Your honour, I truly need deliverance! Anytime viaro boils over, words just spew out of me
and I have very little clue what they mean. . until after I post them!

Deep Sight:

Where do you find that 'will of God'? In stones? In an evasive O.O.I. that defies articulation? In your 'zero' concept of 'nothingness'? Hahaha!! You're quite a character

It really surprises me that till date you are yet to grasp the simple fact that the much bashed "oneness of infinity" is also exactly how your bible and all Abramamic Religions describe God -

Dear Deep Sight, I understand what is meant by 'oneness of infinity' as used by Deists for their concept of the deist's god. And NO, that is not 'exactly' how the Bible and all Abrahamic religions describe God.

Should we have cause to revisit your deistic 'oneness of infinity'  for precisely what it is (minus the antagonisms), it would not be difficult for you to see that none of the Abrahamic faiths purports God to be a 'zero' or 'nothingness' or an 'it' or any of those inarticulate non-starters that have taken you several threads and ednless ages to decipher for yourself. I had indeed hoped that a good explanation for your oneness of infinity would be forthcoming in the other thread you raised for that purpose; but aside the cosmetic jingles of a maths you have no clues about, that same O.O.I. remains ever as evasive.

Relax, when the time comes, my dear friend, viaro will empty your drivel. This drama is not complete yet, and the final draft will not pan out to parts I & II. At best, your deism only goes about stealing concepts from as many religions as are out there - which probably explains why you're never at peace with yourself until you write off the views of others as horrid, etc. Take heart, the time will come.

Deep Sight:
^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

Where do you find that 'will of God'? In stones? In an evasive O.O.I. that defies articulation? In your 'zero' concept of 'nothingness'? Hahaha!! You're quite a character.

Deep Sight:
Ok, is my Deism also too narrow to contain the doctrine that Olumba Olumba Obu is God?

How should I know? Am I a deist? If you would rather Olumba Olumba is your god of 'oneness of infinity', how does that affect me personally? Your deism could be all narrow as best you want to make it, but it's not up to viaro to define its perimeters for you, you know?

Just ride on worshipping a fellow human being and calling that "broad."

Hehe. . I didn't present my Christianity to you as a deistically 'broad' outlook. And as long as John 5:23 says - straight out of Jesus' own mouth, viaro would forever render HONOUR to the Son in precisely the same way that he renders HONOUR to the Father. No quarrel there, is there?

Mavenb0x:
@viaro: Easy, bro. Sticks & Stones. . . Flesh & Blood.

Thanks, Maven. Sometimes I wish Deep Sight was in full view so I pound him with as many sticks and stones I can find.