₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
He did -

Thereby implying that at some point God must have "come into existence"

Note the words in the first line above - "come out of". . .(highlighted). . . God is not said to "come out of" anything, being self-existent, thus leaving Naijbabe's statement intact.

Not so fast, pal. Naijababe's statement does not remain intact as such, since it appears that you might have taken banom's statement out of context. I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think that banom was arguing that God began to exist at some point, and the first thing I would like to do is quote him from this link in post #16:

---

[list]Edit:
Before that, let's clear out of the way the issue of what exactly banom was replying to about something coming out of nothing:

[quote author=naijababe link=topic=359542.msg5026199#msg5026199 date=1259622375]
@ Bawolomo
Let me attempt to answer some of your questions to the best of my abilitiyIt seems to me that the problem here for you is the word "God" , the point is something cannot come out of nothing. If you prefer call it something else.[/quote]To that, banom replied:

[quote author=banom link=topic=359542.msg5027881#msg5027881 date=1259659977]
. . If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task , because you have to point out how God himself came into existence, it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify him from being a God, ( the uncaused cause that caused everything to come into existence).[/quote]The meaning of, or implication in, the deist's idea that something cannot come out of nothing is such that an atheist might argue that "God also came out of something". . that is the implication for the atheist (which is why, as you may have noticed, the atheist is asking today: 'who created the Creator'?). What banom did was show the implication of what such a deist's argument of "some thing can not come out nothing" could mean to the atheist; and as such, banom argued that it would "automatically disqualify him from being a God".
[/list]

---

Now, to the point that banom may not seem to have argued for the notion that God "began" to exist at some point, I quote his post from #16 the previous page:

banom:
This is a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him, If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task , because you have to point out how God himself came into existence, it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify him from being a God, ( the uncaused cause that caused everything to come into existence). the truth is that God can never be proven with mere rational argument and logic. he is supernatural and consequently beyond our natural capacity of comprehension.

I think it should be clear that banom was not trying to make a case for the idea that God began to exist - you had misread him by supposing he was trying to argue such, which was why you replied thus in post #17:

That's quite true Banom - save that God is not said to ever begin to exist. It is right to say that whatever begins to exist requires a cause, but things that have always existed are self-existent and do not require a cause. As i said before, God is the compound of all self-existent laws. Accordingly he needs no creative agent to bring him into existence.

But back now to banom's - one wonders why he would make clear two pivotal points in his quote:

             (a)  "it means God also came out of something
                    which will automatically disqualify him from being a God"

             (b)  "God, (the uncaused cause that caused everything
                     to come into existence)"

In (a) above, banom seemed to have argued that the idea that God also came out of something would "automatically disqualify him from being a God" - because such an idea supposes that God began to exist at some point, which is not his argument. If God began to exist, then that idea ipso facto quite simply "automatically disqualifies" Him from being 'God'.

In (b) as well, the fact that banom may not have argued that God began to exist at some point is clear from what he stated in parenthesis immediately after mentioning 'God'. Said he: "God, (the uncaused cause that caused everything to come into existence)" - how clearer could language be? Could an "UNCAUSED" Being be defined as one that 'began' to exist? Is it not clear that banom would not be arguing for a 'God' that began to exist if he made clear in parenthesis that 'God' of whom he spoke was UNCAUSED?

Now, if banom had not made clear his point, I might see the point in your misreading him. But as far as he was clear, it does not make any sense to have sliced his point out of context to make him say what he quite clearly was not saying at all.

'Nite-nite, later in da day!

@tshkahn,

It's quite late here and I'm a bit tired. I don't know much about these things; however, here's a bit of some of the stuff my girlfriend and I have been chatting about lately along these lines.

tshkahn:
Have you heard anything about this, or was somebody just pulling my leg?

Perhaps that person was not trying to pull your legs; although some of us may not have heard about the specific thing you mentioned (that doesn't necessarily mean it's not possible).

tshkahn:
Is there a female deity known as Nwanyi miri in Nigeria?

This is where my girlfriend might be somewhat helpful. I don't know if there's such a deity as Nwanyi miri in Nigeria; but there could be such, if one takes into consideration the various affinities of such deities in the Ibo (or Igbo) culture(s) -

[list][li]There are several water goddesses in Ibo culture with various names and appellations. Some of these are known by several names, so that one should not be confused about them as to think that the different names may be referring to different goddesses or water deities.
[/li][/list]

[list][li]Another thing to note is that the local names by which they are commonly called may not be specifically to one gender; so that the example of 'mammywater' (or 'mammy-water', 'mami wota') applies to both male and female deities.
[/li][/list]

[list][li]Some examples of these deities or goddesses include:[/li][/list]

[list][li]Nne mmiri ('m[color=Black]other[/color] water')[/li][/list]

[list][li]Uhammiri (or Ogbuide)[/li][/list]

[list][li]Eze mmiri[/li][/list]

[list][li]Imo Miri[/li][/list]

[list][li]Ezi nwanyi gbaola[/li][/list]

Some links you might find useful are:

       Feminism, Women's Power and Mami Wota Phenomenon: Book Review

       Rev. Dr. A. M. Okorie has some interesting article on:
       The Divinity of an African Igbo Village


I hope these will point out some useful notes in your enquiry.

I, too, will retire soon for the night.

Deep Sight:
I cannot see what was astute as God is not said to begin to exist. He is said to have always existed being self-existent.

Here: 'banom was astute to warn that such was "a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him"'. He did not argue that God began to exist; but that if deists are not careful how they approach their subject, they end up compounding their task.

mavenbox:
^^^ Cool. Now I have a free Chrysler stock image, it could come in useful on a web-development project of mine someday.

Lol, credits for that image is: Abfab limos (abfablimos.co.uk); and I'm not sure they would not consider that an infringement of their intellectual property rights. Just be careful, as you're too sweet to be dragged to court for anything.

Deep Sight my pal, as you can see in my reply to Krayo, it is not as if we're out to make you feel bad. To lose such a warm friendship would indeed make us (or to speak for myself) feel bad. .  really bad. But in reply to yours, perhaps you might be able to come round seeing the point we've been trying to pass along for your consideration.

Deep Sight:
Viaro, Krayola - i rally would have thought it was simple enough to see that even if something remains a mystery, a few things about it may be understood. I gave the example of a scratching sound in a box. That we could infer that a creature was there. Or even that it has claws with which to scratch. But we may not be able to understand what creature it is.

That is precisely my point, and dare I risk saying that in many things we've been speaking the same lingo but differing over meanings and contexts in other matters. I have no qualms at all with your analogies or presentations on this subject; but pardon my inability to resist the urge to hold you to account when making statements that tend to yield far too much ground to the atheistically inclined mind that you're trying to reach. To wit: you should be resolute and clear when you say anything in this wise, even at the cost of being misunderstood for a while.

An example is such that there's no need for you to mellow so much to the extent of qualifying 'God' as a quantity, factor, etc - or an "it". M-a-n, this is so serious that if it escapes your notice it would be self-defeating before your next post. The point is that such qualifiers only reduce this 'God'-Being to a point as to give ground for the notion that it is a caused being rather than make your point that He is UNCAUSED. Haven't you noticed yet that this is the reason why respondents like bawolomo have been asking questions about this Being, like:

           'How did this "force" become God?'  . . . .  [post #2]

           'What attributes can you infer by the way.'
           'do you believe this creator is an interventionist one?'  . . . .  [post #30]

Edit:
Even when naijababe had made the same compromising mistake of thinking that anyone can "prefer call it something else", banom was astute to warn that such was "a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him"; particularly on the question of something coming out of nothing. I like the very fine point he made, that:

'If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task,
because you have to point out how God himself came into existence,
it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify
him from being a God, (the uncaused cause that caused everything to come
into existence)" ~ post #16.

What do these portray? Simple: the very thing I've been trying to say, which no less Krayola (as an agnostic) has been trying to point out as well - that there out to be some sort of presuppositions that would help us begin to discuss the subject about the identity of this 'God-Being'. If we reduce this Being to such compromised utilities as an "it", we bury the "it" and take away anything about His Deity/divinity from the equation.

Consistency is the key here; because if someone else other than either viaro or Krayola determines to take you up philosophically on these issues, nothing would be left of your arguments at the end of the day.

Thus i cannot see how the fact that i insist that God's nature cannot be understood even while inferring a few parts of that nature should be a problem.

I hope the above sheds light on where I'm coming from. I could expatiate if need be.

You guys really are adopting a frustrating black-and-white stand: namely that once something is a mystery then absolutely nothing about it can be known or inferred.

This is not even close to understanding your readers before inferring this narrow line about them. It is not the mystery we question, but your vacillations about making a clear pointer in what you're saying. In simple English: Deep Sight, there are far too many holes in your conjectures! In my previous replies to yours, I have acknowledged the plain fact that some things could clearly be inferred -

       If one is to begin to discuss anything at all even in its incomprehensibility,
       would it not make sense to first give "some working presuppositions"
       to convey an idea of what is being spoken about? Even you yourself seem
       to have done that very thing by insinuating the nature of the Being of
       which you are trying to speak: "I can easily infer," said you, "for example
       the attributes of great power and intelligence withim that quantity".
       Did I get you wrong?

You should see that I did not infer that absolutely nothing could be known about God of Whom we speak.

You both know that's a cop out and makes no sense at all.

Which same you have missed the point in ours.

If you insist on that, i may not be able to continue.

I for one did not insist on what you wrongly inferred; and there are several questions left unanswered as yet in yours. Cheers.

mavenbox:
@Topic: Sorry I seem to be the cause of this thread's derailment. Can someone please help to put things back in check?

Lol, I don't think it's too much to get some smiles between times; and yes, we should aim to keep the thread tidy by focusing on its topic.

Actually, even though I'd seen the thread earlier, it didn't so much move me to make any contribution. I don't know why; but for some strange reason it seemed odd to find myself placed as a bouncer somewhere in a team. The questions are nice to consider; but perhaps there seems to be a missing link somewhere. Such topics as Purgatory are not held universally by all Christians everywhere, as other subjects like Baptism & Holy Communion. Nor yet would anyone wonder what relevance this should be to those who are least concerned about such matters as non-Christians.

Just my thoughts for now.

^^^hehehe. . . Krayo, it is not so much that amico mio is not saying anything. More than that, we want to really know what he is saying. Aside from the idea that a lot of things are being spun here, methinks it's just about time for us to get a bit serious and know where exactly what we intend to convey - or it would be even more disastrous in future when engaging enquirers' thoughts on this same subject.

mavenbox:
Sorry I'm unavailable.

If a diamond ring would not do, would this change your mind -

https://www.abfablimos.co.uk/images/chrysler-30-limo.jpg

@Krayo my man, forget ur moves. . the days of rings are gone. Follow in my footsteps.

DISTINCT89:
. . .although he doesn't ve a father because he is born hrough miracle i.e Holy spirit impregnated her Mother Mariam.

Em. . 'he' was born - but 'her' mother was pregnant? I see. _{maybe religion does things to the mind}

. . It was in old testament Jesus perform Ablution, prayed and bowed for Allah.

Fascinating. That is d trut. . d trut. . d trut!

springtec:
Just yesterday, i read in one of the national magazines, that a pentescostal pastor, confirmed that Pastor Bimbo Odukoya is in Hell.

Easy to 'confirm' hell for another person; but how is the pentecostal pastor sure that he himself is not on the waiting list? How is he sure he will escape hell?

viaro:
No way! I will be your pan-enemy till resurrection day!

^^^ hehe. . . of course, you should know that I was pulling your legs.
Hugs, mavenbox - how wonderful to be reconciled.

mavenbox:
@Viaro: Hey been looking for you to tell you that it's all okay, and Im sorry for flaring up that day.

No worries, mavenbox. My apologies for over-reacting that day.

Friends again?

No way! I will be your pan-enemy till resurrection day!

bawomolo:
ha that's the million dollar question. Can man with its limitations comprehend the nature of this being.

true, so what qualities do you think God has. Omnipresence, Omnipotence? I would like to see if you guys agree on the qualities of God.

Yup, you guys have to lay a ground framework for what constitutes a God. What qualities does it have and how does it operate.

Obviously, from my few posts rubbing minds with Deep Sight here, you can see we're not quite on the same identity of the Being called 'God'. I don't intend to loan him any ground in this thread to slip away with his assertions anyhow, since he assumes that what is not tessellating with his deism is "most irrational and inane". Be it so: 'God’s Existence: The Deist Perspective' - we're all ears.

Deep Sight:
Gosh, you do quibble about words.

I don't. Actually your careless equivocation is tending to a bore, and that is one thing I would not wish for you so that your readers would not have to often scratch their heads about the many things you state.

Let's cut to the chase: for your sake i herewith abandon the word "quantity." Let's say perhaps "Factor" as i indicated above. Happy now? Geez weez!

As you may, lol.

I positively deny that it can be said that God created all things or anything[b] out of nothing. [/b]

Hehe. .  so please tell me: from what would you suppose God created anything at all?

I also positively assert that nothingness is itself inherently a non-existent quantity (oops, that word again!) - ok - non existent factor. In other words - there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist, and never has.

Em, sir. . I would file that away for the moment and take it up as exhibit A at the appropriate time.

This can be philosophically and mathematically inferred.

Apart from your '0 + 0 = 0' equation, please try something else and let's see how far you can handle that.

Might i state as an aside that (and please this is delicate so don't start hair-splitting the words, human language being a limited tool) - What would have been  nothingness, is actually the self-existent oneness of infinity, which is God.

I'm not going to split hairs on that excuse up there. If you don't wish to communicate, it were better that you avoid such delicate quibbles. It just makes me wonder: if there is nothing like 'nothingness' (does not exist and never has), what is your point in attempting to make this same never-existing 'nothingness' into a 'God' all of a sudden?

Rather than creation out of nothingness (which does not and has never existed), God created all things from the radiation of his divine and infinite substance. That is not "nothing."

How do you know this? Is that another one of your "just-say-so" and others are to just nod sheepishly?

Every second, literarily, God is spawning zillions of universes and existences way beyond our imagination. This continues ceaselessly, and can be philosophically inferred. I will come back to this later if you are interested.

I am actually interested - please show me.

Note that i qualified my statement. I stated that infinite time is self existent and not created.

I saw all that - [url=https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-359542.0.html#msg5027684[/color]]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-359542.0.html#msg5027684[/url]. I was asking about time, because you cannot just set it aside as if it is not part of the very cosmos we experience.

Deep Sight:
I should make clear that Bawo calls himself an atheist. As you well know, atheism connotes a denial of the existence of God. Atheism is not, strictly speaking, a dialogue about the attributes of God. Whatever attributes we may suppose, atheism altogether denies that God EXISTS.

I understand what atheism in its varied shades mean. You may not have noticed that one of the first things an atheist asks you to do is define the words you use when speaking about God - any 'God'. If you're going to have any meaningful dialogue with any atheistically inclined mind, you would find that words are meaningless and thus make your communication meaningless where you make assumptions that are far too stretched merely on assumptions. Ask any reasoned atheist and they will yet tell you the same thing.

Thus i think you have mis-apprehended the issue: I seek to negate atheistic thought by proving the EXISTENCE of God - not the nature of God.

I wasn't holding brief or playing devil's advocate for atheism; rather, my point was that you had clearly not communicated to your atheist audience by conflating between nature and quantity.

It will thus be sufficient for me if i can show that something exists which caused the universe - i needn't go further to talk about that thing being kind or loving or merciful.

No, but you could at the same time shy away from the 'nature' while yet talking about said nature of the quantity? No?

Capisce?

Sì, capisco.

You dwell far too much on words. I use the word "quantity" exactly to hamstring the atheist who may challenge any other word i use, such as "he" or "she". Quantity here simply means anything that exists, or is being said to exist. I may also say "Factor."

Pardon me - and excuse my highlighting the words you used. It just wouldn't make any sense to speak unclearly in reference to God as a quantity - doing so puts that Being within the things caused and not that which is uncaused.

I postively challenge you to do this.

I have: in reference to ex nihilo.

Premise 2:
Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.
this is similar to "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes from nothing )

Ex nihilo:
'creatio ex nihilo', meaning "creation out of nothing"
The God who created all things did so ex nihilo - created all things out of nothing.
~ this is simply saying that something came out of nothing: ex nihilo.

Ex nihilo is a philosophical proposition as much as it is carried in theological ideologies. That is why when you posit a 'god' that is a 'quantity', you have buried it once and for all and made "it" a caused being, not an UNCAUSED being. Argue that I dwell too much on words - and your arguments would be meaningless until you aim to be clear when you communicate your ideas.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

That cause is not a 'quantity' as you described.

Self Existent things (such as infinite time) do not require a cause.

And how do you empirically determine that time is eternal and not created?

Ready to go?

If you have the philosophical muscle, I'm game.

Observation: The Pyramids in Giza are large and complex. Deduction: Great skill and man power was involved in their construction. Is the inference now clear? I cannot see what quarrel you could have with that reasoning.

I don't have any quarrel; and have you not adduced some attribute of the nature of this 'man'? What would be considered as your 'great skill and man power' - just teasing and nothing more, eh?

Are you suggesting to me that once you observe that a laptop computer can show pictures, you have grasped its entire nature? ? ? ?

No; but I am making a clear case that you have made zero the nature of the quantity so that nothing is left to the enquirer to even begin to understand the slightest point of your discourses. If you don't want anyone to know anything about the nature of the said 'quantity' you espouse, you ought to say nothing about its 'attributes of great power and intelligence' - that would be gulling your audience and expecting them to nod sheepishly.

Oh there! So seeing one attribute of an entity by no means indicates that we can grasp its compound nature.

I see here a confirmation of my earlier inference: inexcusable adjuncts (accessory, auxiliaries; supplements). You said nothing about a "compound" nature - but simply said: "We cannot understand or grasp its nature". Thus I asked: 'You only "inferred" this factor/premise and yet talked about "advanced power" - would that be outside or within the nature which you had stated "We cannot understand or grasp its nature"?

All clear? ? ?

_{P.S: You don't have to explain in brackets the meanings of each word that you use. That supposes that your readers are illiterate, or semi-literate only?}

The explanation of my terms was not meant to convey to my readers that they hardly went to school - not at all. I wanted to be clear in what context they are used in my posts, seeing that one point at which some Nairalanders hold me to my ears is that my posts are either wordy or the diction is somewhere lost. So, okay I heed your call.

Hi Deep Sight,

Deep Sight:
Viaro -

I think you have put the emphasis in the wrong places.

My apologies if that's the case; I sincerely hope not, though. Yet, let me make this simple as far as I can manage:

The emphasis should be -

(a) We may not be able to apprehend the quantity (We cannot understand or grasp its nature)

(b) But we can certainly apprehend that it is there. (We can see that it exists)

I saw all that and for the longest time i was quizzed about what you possibly might mean. What I think is going on here is that you failed to communicate at the expense of equivocal statements between an undefined "quantity" and the "nature" ascribed to that 'quantity'.

I think if you carefully re-consider what is being sought after in the enquiry of several readers, no less of bawolomo's, it is not a question of the "quantity" but of its "nature". In essence, what is the "nature" of this Being of which (he supposed) he was not supposed to comprehend?

If it was rather a question of the "quantity" per se, it would seem quite odd and really out of place for the enquirer to have quizzed about adumbrating (giving an outsketch of) the nature of the said Being - to wit it would be a waste of time "searching for knowledge about a being whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend". It was not about the "quantity", lol - but rather about the "nature" of that Being.

Which makes the statement clear: to wit: we cannot understand the nature of the quantity, but we can see that it exists. Such as the fact that we might not be able to determine the nature of the creature making the scratching sound in the box is, but we can infer that there is something in that box.

Hehe, has anyone pointed out to you the inadequacy incoherence of that analogy? I mean the '0 + 0 = 0' equation and the boxed animal similitude? Okay, no one disturbed your box, and that's why I didn't want to rock the boat. But now that you mention it, I might as well be inching closer to giving it a critique that still would lead us back to square one - to wit: the whole thing was about the "nature" and not the "quantity" itself.

If one is to begin to discuss anything at all even in its incomprehensibility, would it not make sense to first give "some working presuppositions" to convey an idea of what is being spoken about? Even you yourself seem to have done that very thing by insinuating the nature of the Being of which you are trying to speak: "I can easily infer," said you, "for example the attributes of great power and intelligence withim that quantity". Did I get you wrong?

The '0 + 0 = 0' equation may well be saying the same thing, and that was what one may suppose bawolomo drew from, and consequently raised the query about the nature of a Being that he was not supposed to comprehend.

Be that as it may, but is this Being (this 'God' we talk about in common parlance) to be understood at first instance as a "quantity"? I think such ideologies is tends to vagueness and leaves you readers more perplexed than at the beginning. Let me again draw upon your quote:

_____________________________________________________________

This is only a crude example, but i simply mean to say that a full absorbtion
of the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 will settle the question that nothing could exist if
there was not on the left side of the equation (i.e outside of space & time)
a permanent self existent quantity which i call God. Now, from what i see
within the universe, i can also infer a few of his/her/ its attributes - in much
the same way as we inferred that the creature in the box had the abvility
to scratch things. I can easily infer, for example the attributes of great power
and intelligence withim that quantity on the left side of my equation.
_____________________________________________________________
[from post #29 - yours]

Here is the big issue: it seems you would like your readers to just assume that what you assert is "just so" - no questions asked, as we're all supposed to nod approvingly. Thus, it seems we're just to admit to the "quantity" you define as 'God' and take your statement about apprehending its being there quite empirically (or 'better still - intuitively').

But here: how do you determine to proceed on this course on empirical grounds where you already assumed that the nature of this 'quantity' cannot be apprehended (although yet certainly apprehended that "it" is there)? In simple terms: what is your empirical deduction(s) for the existence of this 'quantity' we may not apprehend?

Alright, if Bawo needs working presuppositions, let's try this -

Premise 1: 0 + 0 = 0: Thus no aggregation or compoundment of zeroes will every make 1.

Okay - I leave that proposal to Bawo.

Premise 2: Thus somethingness cannot come out of (proceed from; begin to exist) nothingness.

Hehe - philosophers can quite easily trash that and turn it on its head. I could do that, if Bawo permits me.

Premise 3: The Universe is Something.

Okay.

Premise 4: Since somethingness cannot proced from nothingness, then clearly something caused the Universe.

Ever heard of ex nihilo - 'from or out of nothing'? Huh?
Premises #2 and #4 cannot pass so easily, you know?

Premise 5: Whatever that factor is, is what i call God.

And thus the same 'God' is defined as a 'quantity'? I just want you to get steady here, because the careless use of these inexcusable adjuncts (accessory, auxiliaries; supplements,) will just not cut it for you.

If 'God' is a 'quantity', philosophically that 'quantity' is also caused and not in itself uncaused! We know of many 'quantities' whose 'nature' are yet unclarified even though their existences are inferred from their characteristics - example: dark energy and dark matter. Yet, these 'quantities' do not in any way cause things to begin to exist, even though they have effects on other entities in existence.

It is for this reason that I'd be asking that you approach your subject carefully and qualify your statements (which I hinted to bawo earlier that he might have drawn from one of your unqualified assumptions/statements).

Premise 6: Given the nature, size and complexity of the Universe, one attribute i can infer for that factor is Advanced Power.

How do you come to that premise - empirically, that is? Just how? You only "inferred" this factor/premise and yet talked about "advanced power" - would that be outside or within the nature which you had stated "We cannot understand or grasp its nature"?

Amico mio, please help clarify these issues and stand steady. Can we or can we not apprehend the 'nature' of your 'quantity'? If not, then how come you're generously spalshing attributes upon that 'quantity' and yet shying away from committing to any statement you have made about not apprehending its nature?

Bawo?

Bawo please appear! It's possible viaro is not picking up the frequency wave here. Radio over.

Hi bawomolo,

Your query is fascinating, beautiful - and it just structures the discussion so well for minds like mine.

bawomolo:
you are making one assumption though, is the god that created the earth the same god that created mars, pluto, jupiter etc that's were the problem with universality comes in.

True, it is one assumption (among several that may be possibly posited). I do not have the logical ground to believe the other planets were created (or brought into existence, if you may) by several other gods as distinct from the creation of our own planet, earth.

One premise for my reasoning is this: as far as creation of the universe is concerned, it may be said that 'out of the one spring forth the many'. It is not inconceivable that the various entities of the cosmos came from the unit of a creative process from one Source; for all that may be studied about the universe (within the purview of man's finite mind) are said to have emerged from a unit of basic constituents - matter, space and time.

Hence, it does not necessarily mean that different sources may have preempted the existence of the various planets - howsoever that may be conceived. For then, we may be stretching our thinking to look outside our own existence, inter alia, an existence outside our known universe, and other constituents producing a cosmos very different in nature from our understanding of matter-space-time. As far as we can tell, the other planets mentioned in yours (mars, pluto, jupiter) are within the framework of our common universe.

i would try to find it as soon as possible

That would be great, thanks.

but the problem is what the hell am i searching for? Why waste time searching for knowledge about a being whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend.

Why is it a waste of time searching for knowledge about that Being? And who says that one is not supposed to be able to comprehend the nature of that Being?

Yea, I know you're drawing from what others (eg., Deep Sight) have said, that: 'God certainly is and remains incomprehensible to every human mind', but that was an unqualified statement. Indeed, he (Deep Sight) had attempted to 'make a certain clarification here', alas! it might have proven quite an obfuscation than a clarification. More so as he adds the subscript that: 'We may not be ble to apprehend the quantity, what it means and its nature: but we can certainly apprehend that it is there and this we can do empirically, but better still - intuitively'.

Sometimes it is best to forefend such unqualified statements - avoid them altogether, as one may very easily be fazed as to their far reaching consequences. How in the world is one to understand a connection between these antipodes:

(a) 'we may not be ble to apprehend the quantity'

(b) 'but we can certainly apprehend that it is there'

This is why I quite sympathise with your remark about wasting time searching for knowledge about something 'whose nature i'm not supposed to be able to comprehend'. The antipodes simply cuts the ground from under which you are expected to stand while yet asking you to not fall into a hole.

The nature and qualities of this supreme being has to be established first before one begins to explore it.

Yes. . and not necessarily.

Yes, if we hope to derive some fruit from the discussion about any apprehension of the nature of that Being as so posited by the one who broaches it for discussion. Otherwise, it is meaningless and a thorough waste of time.

Not necessarily, because the very initial stage of any enquiry is not first to 'establish' the nature or qualities of the subject before exploration - that would be like first making a conclusion before attempting to explore anything. If we first 'establish' this and that in general enquiries, where would be the drive to then 'explore' what we already have arrived at?

I understand (perhaps) what you're trying to say. It seems that far too many things are taken for granted, where statements are made out of hand, and more statements are made to bandage the previous statements. . . etc. In which case, perhaps what you might be saying is that we first have to 'proffer' some working presuppositions (rather than 'establish' any ideas) and then examine these postulations by further 'exploring' them. This, I suppose, is the logical premise of progressing the discussion.

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:
@viaro

You are lucky I have just promised God that I would not use any foul word on anyone again in this site,other you would have gotten it very hot from me.

Pity that your pretentious 'promise' arrived at His doorstep too late - after all you can do, it is this whimpering that serves as plaster for your excuses. >hiss<

You have been the one attacking every one on this site who tries to expose these criminals who claim to be men God,some of their victims are not even sure of feeding the next day ,yet they will come and give money to one crook in suit who will claim he is representing God.

You're not doing too badly as a liar, for that's all you are. There is not one instance where I have supported any scams by anybody. The difference here is that viaro seeks a healthy debate with no-nonsense from twerps like you who go about 'confirming' stupid lies from folks at anselm.com!

Your wish is that people should not talk about it so that their ignorant victims will remain uniformed.That's the game you ve been playing all these while pretending to preach voluntary tithing.

This is another one of your gutless duplicity - which I have well addressed in posts #7 and #8. Can't you exercise a little shamefacedness and cease from spewing these comic lies? Or, do you want me to produce further evidence in my past posts where I have encouraged good discussions and tried to maintain that no single argument (pro-tithing  or anti-tithing) should become law for the Body of Christ? What is killing and burying you all at once is the fact that you found a respected pastor (Tunde Bakare) saying the very same things I have known and shared all along since my coming to Nairaland. What do I care if you can't find a way of controverting that plain fact?

This scam has led to the proliferation of churches with no significant increase in the overall christian population as most of the new churches are just business organisations out to make profit for their investors and as such are not interested in the salvation of souls but only restricted to those rich countries where they will quickly get a return on their investment even if that country is alrteady 100 % christian.

And what exactly does that have to do with what I posted from Tunde Bakare's comments in consonance with my views on tithing?

This scammers will leave the poor idol worshippers in their various villages and move over to "evangelise" those rich countries like united states,britain and other european countries .There are not beven interested in evangelising non-christian countries in the asian countries some of whom have never heard of Jesus

And again: what has that got to do with what I posted from Bakare?

Edit: my reply to abuzola: >deleted<.
_____________

sokislam, thanks for posting the very same things I had in mind for Abuzola.

[quote author=Abuzola  1 link=topic=358001.msg5038080#msg5038080 date=1259791570]Michael died a muslim, go through google and see[/quote]Doing a Google search:

[list]Michael Jackson's Religion

For the most part it is believed that Michael Jackson did not officially practice any one religion devoutly, although he did explore different alternative religions throughout his life.

Michael Jackson's parents were Jehovah's Witnesses. Michael was born a Jehovah's Witness, and practiced this religion for a short period of time after his hit "Thriller" was released.

In 1987, when the Jehovah's Witnesses criticized his album, Michael Jackson announced that he was no longer a member of this religious following.

In 2007, he briefly took interest in Islam when his brother Jermaine was converting to Islam. There is speculation that Michael Jackson converted in November 2008. However, no official statement or confirmation of [size=14pt]these rumors[/size] has ever been made, or been publicly released by him or his publicists.

For a brief period of time he wore a red string on his left wrist, a symbol of Kabbalah.
SIDE NOTE

For what it's worth, according to a family friend who appeared on CNN, Micheal Jackson allegedly wanted his children to be raised as Jehovah's Witnesses. According to this friend, that is one reason that he wanted his mother to be the one who raised them.
[url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Michael_Jackson's_religion[/url][/list]

michelin89:
How am I wrong? I am not into any form of dogmatism, so I am perfectly in the position to give any interpretation according to my own experience.

Let me help: you are wrong. Again, you are wrong! How, you ask? For one, you're making a dogmatic statement repeatedly that flies in the face of the facts on ground. It is NOT TRUE that an atheist cannot stop being an atheist - which is as false as false can be. To help you see the fallacy in that statement was why I asked that question repeatedly: "Are you trying to say that no atheist is known to have converted to any religion (not only Christianity)?"

If you tell me that no atheist is known to have converted to any religion, then a second question becomes pertinent: "What qualifies someone as "atheist" in such a way that conversion to any worldview other than atheism is im[/b]possible?" Both questions are sequenced to help point you to the fallacy of your repeated assertion.

A second thing is that your reply confirms my point: when you say that you're giving 'any interpretation according to [b]my own experience', is that not what I have often noted about "your own idea of atheism"? To remain in the cubicle of your own idea/experience(s) does not mean therefore that outside of that experience nothing else stands. In fact, when you do a little looking around, you find the world has moved on beyond your own ideas about what you are trying to make out of atheism; and to repeatedly maintain that attitude of 'your own' idea/experience(s) is as dogmatic as you allege in others.

Saying I am wrong is absurd because there is no rule you can abide to to actually prove that I am wrong.

You're wrong - that is not absurd; and I just explained above. There is actually a rule beyond "your own"; and to clap about 'your own' in the face of others is dogmatic.

Secondly once someone has experienced the doubts, it is hard to go back. We aren't speaking about something physical, but spiritual, which makes it very difficult to go back to spiritual after you yourself has experienced its fallacy.

Don't make me laugh!
What does your own atheism know as "spiritual"? How do you 'experience' between the two (physical and spiritual) in order to qualify your own atheism as different from the atheism of others? Difficult to go back to the spiritual, you say? That is only to be considered for discussion when and only when you can explicate between the spiritual and the physical - otherwise, it were better that you don't use words carelessly around in your posts.

However, if I'm not preempting anything here, let me point out that I'm already aware of several positions of atheists who see themselves as Spiritual Atheists (SA). Here are just two among the many different shades of this 'SA's -

[list](1) There is no consensus among Spiritual Atheists regarding the literal existence of one's own "spirit" or a collective "spirit"; however, there is consensus that if any "spirit" does exist, it is not external to the universe and it is not "supernatural".
http://www.spiritualatheism.com/[/list]

[list](2) Spiritual Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as an entity external to the universe that created and rules the universe; but the presence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as the personification of the universe itself.
http://wikibin.org/articles/spiritual-atheism.html[/list]

While the first acknowledges that there is no concensus among SAs, the second, however, distinguishes itself from "traditional atheism" (as I noted earlier between different types of atheism, like your own as distinct from those of other atheists) - and then goes on to highlight a few systems considered as "spiritual atheism" -

[list]The following spiritual philosophies are generally considered to be part of the Spiritual Atheism family:

       *Buddhism
       *Non-literal Christianity (also known as Esoteric Christianity)
       *Non-literal Islam (also known as Esoteric Islam)
       *Non-literal Judaism (also known as Esoteric Judaism)
       *Non-literal Theism (also known as Esoteric Theism)
       *Hinduism
       *New Age
       *Paganism
       *Pantheism
       *Panentheism
       *Spiritual Humanism
       *Spiritual Naturalism
       *Taoism
       *Wicca[/list]

Which one do you identify with? And if you cross out all the above and more, does your own atheism mean the very same thing as other atheists' atheism?

Even Banom agreed that he has not fully accepted Christianity and still battles with certain episodes.

I don't see how banom was saying the same thing as your assertion that an atheist cannot but remain an atheist.

Atheism is the absence of a system and when you negate the spiritual, you hardly go back.

Excuse me? Lol, let me just allow you to hold your very limited view - as it is way too off the curve from what atheism is to many other atheists. Wnat more - I can post loads for your consideration.

Remember Cartesio? I guess you know how he ended. He wanted to start by negating everything and ended up being just half of what he actually is and that may also occur to Banom, if for real he was an Atheist, which I doubt.

I remeber Cartesio; but I don't see how that name is the cut-and-dry mold into which every atheist must be cast to qualify as atheists through history. Nor do I see how Banom is trying to negate everything and end up negating himself, lol.

Atheism is not skepticism or cynicism, so nothing stops you from embracing another religion after going through a period of NO dogmas. But you become extremely analytical and critical and your new faith had better been something with solid foundation.

People who leave atheism behind have their reasons for doing so - and atheists who are far too concerned thereto have been very cynical, not to mention a die-hard skepticism that they bind on themselves. It is the dogmatism of these latter that I'm asking again that you consider.

I can's see an an Atheist who was once a Christian becoming a Muslim or a Jew. It's out right impossible. They can embrace a philosophy but never a spirituality.

I'm not asking you about multi-level conversions and deconversions; but simply: "Are you trying to say that no atheist is known to have converted to any religion (not only Christianity)?"

michelin89:
You refuse to see the point. Atheism is not something, it's the negation of something. If I negate a being, it means it doesn't exist. You keep trying to identify it with an existing system of belief, which is wrong.

Again, you're wrong - for that up there is your own idea of atheism, which is not the atheism of many other atheists who hold their own atheism to the exclusion of all others.

Atheism is 'something', even though it portends to hold a 'negative' idea about another 'something'. If atheism (your own atheism) is not 'something', you would be least concerned about anyone who has been one, let alone your statement that "You can't stop being one once you have been" - how do people 'stop' being something that is not 'something'?

That was why I asked you directly: "Are you trying to say that no atheist is known to have converted to any religion (not only Christianity)?"

When you say that an atheist cannot stop being an atheist, it contradicts the fact on ground that many atheists have left atheism behind for their new found belief systems - religious or philosophical. That is fact, not fancy.

Secondly, since many atheists like to believe that an atheist cannot stop being one (even though that is so, so untrue), I wanted to know why you would repeatedly maintain that idea in the face of its fallacy. To which, my second question: "What qualifies someone as "atheist" in such a way that conversion to any worldview other than atheism is [b]im[/b]possible?"

It's not a system, it is rather the absence of a system.

Atheism is a system as much as any other worldview. This will become obvious in the course of the thread, and your subsequent answers to questions like the above.

michelin89:
Atheism is meant to free your mind from any bond. You can't stop being one once you have been. I guess you were never an Atheist, because you'd know what I am talking about.  

Could I also ask you the same questions as above? Here -

viaro:
Are you trying to say that no atheist is known to have converted to any religion (not only Christianity)?

viaro:
What qualifies someone as "atheist" in such a way that conversion to any worldview other than atheism is [b]im[/b]possible?

Chrisbenogor:
I totally agree there is no going back the doubts will haunt you forever, unless you were never an atheist

Not true. Are you trying to say that no atheist is known to have converted to any religion (not only Christianity)? What qualifies someone as "atheist" in such a way that conversion to any worldview other than atheism is [b]im[/b]possible?

michelin89:
Atheism is the negation of any form on dogmatism!

Nope, that is your atheism, not the atheism of other atheists who are as dogmatic about their own atheism to the exclusion of all other worldviews.

michelin89:
Christianity and any other form of spirituality are pure dogmatism. You are leaving an illusion. Wake up!

And atheism is not dogma?

modupe01:
@Hi viaro,

Thanks again for going through those links. It is for you to reflect on in your quiet time, you may not necessarily agree with them now and it is not a matter of argument. You are entitled to your opinion and the responsibility of you finding out the truth depends squarely on your shoulders. What you do with these truths is entirely up to you.

Thanks, modupe01. I'm quite familiar with the arguments of ICR; and their own interpretations are their own and does not represent 'truth' for any other Christian. This has been demonstrated again and again, especially where they often evade certain questions, as the ones I offered you for consideration. I think we should be careful how we hold on to particular modes of exegesis about the age of the cosmos/universe that try to box down everything to the narrow assertions of some traditionalists. Even God Himself is not averse to our use of the gift of reason He gave us.

bawomolo:
one problem though, planet earth is only a small portion of the universe so how can you infer the attributes of the creator from such a small portion of it's creations?

That's easy and presents no problem at all. Besides seeking analogies for the Creator as regards His nature and attributes, men have sought to understand issues of a *universality about the cosmos from a telluric standpoint ('telluric' - that is, as relating to matters of the earth) It is from the earth that men have sought to understand the cosmos.

But of *'universality', I have in mind the idea that it is "the quality ascribed to an entity whose existence is consistent throughout the universe". This extends beyond religion and embraces even the metaphysical, in which case we can see that men have tried to infer the attributes or properties of any entity in the universe from a small portion of the cosmos. So, the 'small portion' of the universe presents no problem at all in seeking an understanding (or inference) of that which is beyond the earth.

However, bawomolo, I'm interested in this:

bawomolo:

viaro: Someday, I would like to seriously take up that idea of "popping in an out of existence" with anyone who has some muscle to go the distance in such a discussion.

KAG discusses it well. It sure is an interesting possibility.

Could you point me to any link in the forum where KAG has discussed this sometime in the past? Thanks in advance.

Lady 234:
I doubt. In Exodus 20:8-11 Elohim blessed the 7th day and made it Holy. Yet Pentecostals go to church every Sunday perpetually breaking the 4th commandment.

It is not only Pentecostals that go to Church on Sundays - please find out.

Adonai made the 7th day(Saturday) shabbat not Sunday, better retrace your roots. Saturday is the Jewish Shabbat, I don't even know where you guys got the word sabbath from.

Christians are not under Judaism, nor are they called to observe the Jewish Shabbat - please find out.

Come Discover the Jewish Jesus, Join the Messianic movement and stop celebrating Shabbat on Sunday.

Christians are not called to celebrating any Shabbat on any day - not Saturday, not Sunday, not any day. The Messianic movement needs to rediscover themselves and know where they stand, instead of seeking attention with their middle-of-the-road adventures where they can conveniently point fingers at others.

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=352044.msg5036265#msg5036265 date=1259769964]ANOTHER BLOW ON VIARO,
I correct myself now, despite the fact that sometimes  the interpreters of the Qur’an make errors; however the scholars you have cited above did not make one (although previously I alluded to this view).[/quote]Lol, I laugh in UFO language!

You're quite some character. . and like the rest of your Muslim ummah, you're quite entertaining - which is why my laughter is exhuasted in English till I had to borrow from outer space. I shall allow you to keep 'correcting' yourself until you've reached the end of Abu-Safwan trying to serve those very weak 'blows' (more like 'excuses') on viaro. For now, your confusion in apologising on behalf of muslim scholars and interpreters is not even my least worry. When the time comes, I might regret sending you on your much deserved exile (or you can appear with another ID/username). Enjoy until then.

Edet Okon:
Many Christians have left their Jewish roots, they follow what their pastors say instead of the Torah, Jewish tradition and the New Testament.

You're shooting yourself in the leg. Christians were not called to be Jews or to come under Judaism, or even practise Jewish traditions. By mentioning the 'New Testament', it should be clear to you that Christians were not brought under Judaism - and 'Jews' who are asking Christians to go back to Jewish traditions do not even practise the Judaism of the [b]O[/b]ld [b]T[/b]estament either. Your comments and arguments are often misplaced and conflating.

bawomolo:
KAG discusses it well. It sure is an interesting possibility.

Good - I look forward to such an 'interesting' possibility.