₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: Deep Sight : The oneness of infinity. An immutable, self existing, immaterial intelligence.
Plaetton: Pure energy which only changed form, birthing the Universe as we know it and which is indestructable.

Wahala !!

It's already been said, this is a winner. Looks to me like someone's but.t rap.ing ockam's razor. We agree there must have been something, we agree casuality need not work intuitively, well, maybe not?
me: "There's some theist online who points out supposing some item had existed forever and said item causes a permament effect, that effect too must have existed forever too."
deep sight: "I hear you on this. With reference to the bolded, yes, some things may have existed forever, but this universe demonstrably has not. As such, this specific universe cannot be said to be a permanent effect. "

Except we aren't talking about this universe, we are wildly speculating about pre-big b.ang conditions. Seems to me like you want to add properties to this era that would widely complicate things, just because. A simpler explanation like plaetton's, which could involve simple and naturally evolved programming, like the "game of life" but a version for said universe, matter/energy rearranging itself constantly, (there are reasons it's taken billions of years in this for planets to form in this universe, and even with their now apparent ubiquity we still can't seem to locate intelligent life anywhere else: it involves a hell of a lot of chance, similar to evolution but not really the same in it's details, not a very efficient way for an "intelligence" to operate, this among other options I've not come across or thought about) would do, but suddenly, "An immutable, self existing, immaterial intelligence". Why?

jayriginal: Interesting question. If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that the Universe did have a cause, however, that cause was mechanical or physical in nature, perhaps pure energy; in short, the cause was devoid of intelligence and consciousness. would you call it god ? (A hypothetical question but should bring up interesting responses).

Yeah, an interesting situation, should it arise. And I would guess the same thing as you, people will call it God, because it makes them feel better and it will also solve the "gaps" in knowledge (hopefully we always these else it will get real boring imo, I know that's selfish of me).

Edit: clarity

Ugh, phone
@deep sight
"Nothing defies logic, my friend. God is the sum of all logic."
Vague. What can the sum of all logic do? Add the bits that suit it and subtract others? Does it do it consciously? You can infer that it is the sum of all logic, how? You can't tell if it's sentient?


"We might decide that there wasn't any singularity. The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere. When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter. It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter. Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time. Now you can ask: what sets the universe off. There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe. It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time."
Stephen Hawking

If a hypothesis is beyond your grasp that does not mean it is nonsense, especially when it is the most popular among the candidates for that particular problem. The problem might be you. I make it clear I'm bouncing ideas as well. You've been taking a piss on both science and logic for a while now, you are freely redefining space, time to fit your needs. When you are asked to clarify, you obfuscate by divining more properties. If we took your attitude this would probably have been over long ago.

"Exactly: it is that very logical necessity of God that the athiest fails to grasp."
So, for the both of you, lucidly if you will, what exactly have we not grasped? Can you do it with diagrams and s-l-o-w-l-y, as you can see I'm no match for your awesome

caezar: First cause supposes a beginning from a cause which has no beginning. Otherwise, it would not be first cause.

Parameters for the first cause are not set by the system, in this case the system is the big bang and all the little routines that it contains. This should be patently obvious so I'm not sure why would make this argument. The issue should be about the nature of the source of all this chaos. Do you think it's sentient? Do you think it has supernatural pproperties, that can defy logic?

Deep Sight: It is incoherent in the extreme and absolutely nonsensical to speak of these quantities and at the same time equate them with nothingness. At best, you have no idea of the definition of the word "nothingness". At worst, you are suffering from some incurable mental confusion tending towards irrational delusion. As, of course, are all atheists. Some worse than others: your words would render you amongst the most lamentable cases of loss of rationality.



And that you could have added this to your first claim that there was nothingness is just sad.

Have a nice day. I have nothing to debate with this sort of confused nonsense.

You sound mad, you mad? Do not fear, we've been doing fine without zeus, we'll manage fine without god. Now, let's hope it doesn't take you an eternity to answer a mere human like me (unlike the last time when you had to be backed into a corner by platteon, about your definition of god, that was just sad). I agree with energy being 'self-existent', I agree this god has been around (not your silly bshit without any proof about it creating himself, htf do you come up with this s.hit, why do you even need to), its just been around, call it a consequence of abtract concepts like numbers or whatever: we don't know. Now, ignore the details, is 'god' a personal god?

Deep Sight: I have bolded some text above in red and in blue.

I hope, that without having to speak further, you can read your own words and see clearly how disastrously and irretrievably the red words contradict the blue.



Well so long as we are speaking of the EXISTENCE of God, for now it is not relevant to ponder the question of its being personal or impersonal. Let's address its existence as a starter.

Let's see.. The phrasing might be a little poor, that's about it. I equate infinite energy with nothing by virtue said energy cancelling itself out, and it having the same properties whichever way you look. This might turn out to be hogwash but the underlying principle is still fairly accurate. First there was energy. Energy's balance is upset, matter is spread about: that is our current universe. Matter is energy, no? Besides I'm not stating it as fact, I just think its a gzillion times more plausible than anthrophomizing or attaching some kind of intelligence to the process. Btw, why do you require immutability?

We agree there is no such thing as nothing, else we wouldn't be here. You've gone on to say god is the energy of the universe, is this correct? I have not problem with that (why would you choose to name that god though, it's confusing). You hint that this energy has intelligence, or is self aware and somehow planned this process. ? I hint at that poor young princess long in a tower, who dreams of the brave prince charmings she's read about, that slay the dragon and take her to a better world, except no one told her those were fairy tales.

Lord Babs: now i've got to believe u're referring 2 d Hindu stuff. You know the drift, don't u? Based on your assumption, it'll still lead to an infinite regress. . .
Ques: what is the turtle resting on?
Ans: turtle.
Ques: what is the turtle resting on?
Ans: turtle
on and on and on ad infinitum. Unless you'll want to prove that some 'unexplainable' gravity force is aiding the last of the turtles. But then you'll still be faced with questions like: why does the same gravity not work for the elephant or the earth itself. And these you'll have to prove substantively, lest the agnosticists(especially) strangle uuu.

During one of his lectures or something a woman told stephen hawking he was talking rubbish, as the turtles were "all the way down" (he may have been just goofing around though, ppl can't be that stup.. Oh wait). As for the relative falling I'll figure it out the day I finally get what gr is on about (seems to include warping time as well). Or I just ask some of the ppl on this forum to make something up. I believe there are quite a few experts among these strange creatures dubbed 'religious' at dreaming stuff up

Oops, never mind. It was a joke.. But if the turtle were falling, and we were moving along with it, so long as speed were constant we would not be able to to tell the diffrence. If we were under it and it were pushing (accelerating actually), the effect would be indistinguishable from that of gravity (gr= general relativity), or something like that. So we could still be on top of (or under) a giant turtle moving through space. Who would have thunk!

^^^^^
What a silly argument, we both know it's turtles all the way down. This argument also ignores the fact that if were uniformly falling through infinity, we wouldn't be able to tell ( actually that is similar to what is actually happening and gravity in gr, can anyone explain gr in plain english?). How's that sir?!

So much, there's a little too much. Ignore this as it's going to go all over the place if you're only interested the main topic. Also, I'll be reiterating a lot things that should be rather obvious to most of us (annoying), and speculating (equally annoying)

Lord Babs: Here is my theory: sometime you see a ray of the sunlight blurring your visual, your immediate response will be most likely thrown at the sun, and not the rays. But although the sun(which is farther from you) is a substantive matter(cause), the ray is nothing but mere an illumined effect of the sunlight. This shows that even a thing that is considered something might not be concretely something, but a mere nothing in disguise. After all, it is often said that there is 'sense' in 'nonsense' as there is 'problem' in 'no problem, just as there is 'thing' in 'nothing'. Theoretically, everything that exists is nothing. This is proven by the inevitability of death, which eventually swallows up existing things into nothingness. Plants die, properties die, organisms die, humans die. The whole of existence is but a make-belief something but absolutely nothing in disguise! I wish I could express my thoughts clearer than this.

I'm not too sure about what you are trying to demonstrate here. You're a lawyer? I think it's because I'm not too familiar with the way you guys illustrate stuff. With the biological organisms dying bit for instance, I think of it in terms of energy. Sure, "all men must die", but energy remains the same. When the organism was alive, it was collecting energy from the environment (food, sunlight, whatever mechanism) and using it to 'live'. Basically the second law of thermodynamics, no need to get into too much detail. Just that my thinking style cannot relate to that (and I'm fairly high). Another key word is entropy with regards to how stuff seems to waste away

Lord Babs: The first fallacy you pandered to is that of Slippery slope, by disembarking from the progression of my arguments, tagging it 'gibberish'. I forgive your ignorance. The second fallacy you're guilty of is called 'petitio principii'(begging the question), by engaging in a circular argument, when you used what .....

This post I understand, and couldn't agree more (but another death analogy.. I think he is of the opinion that the parents are not human, rather made of jazz or something, but he doesn't elaborate)

Lord Babs: I admit i'm not a fan of mathematics, but at least i'm not as vapid to not give a simple mathematical illustration of my argument. Here is it:
1. Let 0 stands for 'nothing'.
2. Let 1 stands for 'something'.
3....

Yup, something like that, just not sure where the -1 comes from.

plaetton :
If god can be self-created and self-existent, then why can't the universe also be self-created and self-existent?

Because, GOD

plaetton :
The above cannot be gibberish. It goes to the core of the issue. If god exists, then god is something, and if god is something then something cannot come out of nothing, unless god is nothing, in which case, god does not exist.

Its is better to start with doubts with aim of arriving at certainty than to start with certainty and then end up with doubts.
That is the folly of most theists and creatonists.

So energy must be god. That is the only way the notion of self existence and immutablity can be a bit palatable.
The physical universe, down to its basic component , is just intangible energy. e=mc2
So the universe is also energy(albeit compressed or dense energy)
So, the universe, in its basic form, is also immutable and therefore self-existent.
The very same same qualities you ascribe to god.
So, the universe is god, or in the least, a part of god.
Do you agree with my deductive logic?

Correction: The universe is not mutable. The universe is made of matter. We all know from primary school that matter cannot be destroyed or created. It can only change form. [EDIT the second law, again]

Lucid and succinct. Sometimes I wish I had that

jayriginal: Nothing wrong with a conviction (the trinitarians you are so fond of have their own convictions as well you know?). However until your convictions can be demonstrated as fact, they are merely that; convictions.

That shouldn't be too hard to understand, no?

Deep Sight: In my view, God is the compound of pure intangible energy and the compound of self existent laws.

This is not to say that I subscribe to God being strictly impersonal: for; as someone once powerfully remarked, creation itself reeks of a personal rather than impersonal act. Nevertheless I do not believe that God itself necessarily directly created this universe. Someday humans will create a universe. That does not mean humans and all of reality, have no ultimate origin - which is what God is.

That took a while, finally what you think god is. And you think there's something personal about it. Why?

And now my own semi-coherent ramblings

If you require something to be imutable, we can go with infinite energy. If there was only infinite energy as a starting point, you could actually say there was: nothing. Everything would be the same, every point you pass in which ever direction would be infinite energy, practically nothing (or the exact same properties everywhere). Matter and antimatter (both energy) are constantly colliding, infinitely, and cancelling each other out. Every once in a while though some matter escapes (even antimatter escapes, but for unknown reasons this is much, much rarer, so much so antimatter is considered the most expensive substance on this rock), and this makes up the known universe. (if you think this doesn't make sense look up the incompleteness theorem, math can be tricky). The big ban.g to most is one of these collisions going ballistic, for reasons we are not too clear of, and creating unimaginable amounts of matter in a few seconds. The main point is the infinite energy is still there, just canceling itself out, being "nothing".

I'm not going to make any assertions though, as this is not fact. I'm not even sure if I understand the concepts and details, this is just my personal opinions and stuff. However, objectively, I cannot see in any way how you can justify creation as "reeking of something personal". You'll have to explain how, why, else it comes across to me as you believing in what you want to believe, perhaps because it makes you comfortable.

I actually have a job, s^%&, I'm off

This looks awfully familiar

You've not read the koran, have you?

Are you thinking of god as a personal god, or some sort of sentient being? If so, (textbook and ridiculously easy to predict) god of the gap much? Explain what this 'god' is, if you will

Kay 17: There alawys has to be a potential to release a tremendous world, the problem with the arena of nothing is that it is a total lack/absence of thing, even potential.

Your terse responses leave me puzzled most of time. Do ppl mistake you for a robot and misunderstand you all the time? I have that problem sometimes

Ooh, cogito ergo sum. Are you saying the fact you exist implies there is no such thing as an absolute nothing? After all, something must have been involved in the creation of energy. It's an interesting thought. I think numbers (or mathmatical 'truth') will eventually come across it, and of course it will be some sort of logical paradox. Well, actually, I think that's sort of what I've been implying.

Cue religious using 'god'. Turtles are also an excellent explanation.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Joagbaje: ^^^
How? thats not true. please explain

Which part is not true? The nothing bit? I already posted a link. Also, look up virtual particles and the casimir effect ( though appearently some its effects could be explained by other means, but most accept it). That 'nothing' is not really nothing in this universe's spacetime is pretty much a fact. Don't take my word for it though, look it up

@area_boy science is some crazy, crazy stuff. Some have models which have us being in a black hole atm, along with other black holes being capable of having their own universes (and probably having said universes). My favorite out there hypothesis (I don't think its even that, they were just playing around with ideas and did some of the math) is the single electron one, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe , it sounds busy. And 'many worlds' looking viable. there's this bit of absolute madness as well http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment and many other things. Its enough to make you pull out all your while screaming 'we're all gonna die!!'. Not sure why you need religion to be inspired with awe, but off topic.

^^^^^^^ What kind of shill/troll are you? Fill me in

Sir, have a "like"

Kay 17: Matter and antimatter collide and release energy

Do they always release energy? The way I understand it, they usually cancel out. The little bit of matter that is excess is what makes up most of the observable universe, yes? No one really knows what dark matter/energy is, but is it related to antimatter?

These are all technicalities anyways. Bottom line is "nothing" in this universe is not really "nothing". Before big bang, nobody knows. I suppose if you tele-jazzed yourself to a place where big bangs spacetime expansion has not reached you may find true nothing, or do you create spacetime by simply being there? Pointless question, I know

Sirniyeh: Na wa for Nairalander atheists! Una no go kill person o. But let me narrate this report. Please permit me bcs i cant remember the detail.
During OBJ regime, the minister for International Affairs confessed on NTA live that there is this country (name forgotten) where they dont practice any single religion out of the world religions. According to him, he asked may be they dont believe in God. The president of the country replied that, "our belief is that what we do to other person is done to God, whether good or bad, and there is consequency for it".
The Minister confessed that the president comment on religiousity in naija, upon all naija is not peaceful.
My people, is this not a shame to all religionists for inability to chllenge their God on behalf of naija stability?
(if you remember the name of the country, pls remind me.)

Why good sir, I don't know what you are talking about, but it seems to me you've come across some sort of humanism. It's pretty awesome, eh?

^^^ lol . Logic seems to have vanquished a lot of these gods

Sirniyeh: If you have practically witnessed where this unseen FORCE manifest its omnipotency, you dare not disbelieve it atall.

Why sir, would you do that? You even used caps lock... It's like deliberately driving your car into a wall, leaving a fox in a hen house, a priest with alter boys etc. Now we'll just come across as mean

Deep Sight: I hear you on this. With reference to the bolded, yes, some things may have existed forever, but this universe demonstrably has not. As such, this specific universe cannot be said to be a permanent effect.

Aren't we discussing conditions before the big b.ang, where most physicists fear to thread? Some think its pointless because of time/casuality issue (like hawking appearently), others because of the math or etc. Bottom line, no one knows what conditions where, if there where conditions (or if they could even be called conditions at that point). So why is out of place for something to have existed forever when the rules are so counter-ntuitive (there's no time, or at least no proof of time existing before big ba.ng, so how long was forever?). As we cannot go back beyond big ba.ng we are left with maths/theories and hopefully eventual experimental validation, if it's even possible.

You bold out krauss admiting he doesn't know some of the details. There is no shame in not knowing. It is by far more dangerous to claim you have the answers when you don't. And even if you do establish laws and whatnot, should something come and prove you wrong, you adjust and change the law. Experimentally tested solutions should be given precedence, no? You solve no pproblems by dreaming up a magical solution. But I shouldn't be explaining the scientific method to you, should I? You are at least that erudite. Anyways my whole point was that even if I cannot think up anything atm, casuality need not work as expected in a universe that has drastically diffrent rules, such as pre- big ban.g (even in this universe at a quantum level it does some very strange sh.it, abi?)

Deep Sight: nse. None of this deals with the proper definition of NOTHING: which evisages total nothingness. Such total nothingness could not deliver any somethingness. Please read again the bolded paragraph of the article i posted above.



Those ideas are indeed st.upid and d.aft, apologies to whoever holds such notions.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations
I don't have the time atm, but yes I agree what 'nothing' is/was pre-big ban.g is an unknown, and that is key to this discussion (I've been assuming we all agree there was a big bang). In our current universe though, as the link above illustrates (if its english), nothing is not really nothing. Particles seem to be constantly borrowing energy and paying it back to invisible sources, annahilating themselves with their anti-matter twins, etc (or that's my limited understanding, where nl work-dodging ppprocastinating physicists to explain, can't they procastinate here?).

Sorry I don't have plenty time, I'll read the full thing and give a proper reply. But why z hate on krauss, he's a bad guy string theorist who doesn't afraid anything (iirc actually, I might be mixing them up)

Deep Sight: O, no time, no space. . . . nothingness. And then suddenly an entire universe slams into existence, without any cause or impetus.

Do you really believe such nonsense?

Honestly I have heard religious people speak nonsense, but I have never heard greater nonsensical foolishness than when atheists try to render the universe uncaused. It is the height of foolishness honestly. To be more precise, d.aft s.tupudity. To be even more precise, dense.

I didn't say there was no cause. I suggested casuality may not have to work intuitively under certain conditions. Any physicists here? There is no time for massless particles, they could travel across the galaxy wearing a magical watch and not a second would have passed to them locally, yes? So, even if casuality is ppossible under such conditions, why do you expect it to work intuitvely. There's some theist online who points out supposing some item had existed forever and said item causes a permament effect, that effect too must have existed forever too. There you go, casuality with a twist.(and I personally can't really see anything that could have existed forever, concepts like numbers I agree with, nothing else has been around forever imo, except if the concept of numbers has some physical effect then...)

And I don't think the nothing theory is nonsense. Matter comes into existense and annihilates itself all the time, even in 'nothing'. One of these collisons resulted in the big bang, or at least that is one of the viable theories. Then again, there might be diffrent 'nothing'. Again, physicists?

Was all the stu.pid, daf.t part necessary? Meh

Before the big bang there wasn't time. Why should casuality work intuitively in such conditions?

Why good sir, you've broken my heart. I am now going to believe in god because I do not want you to see me as a 12 year old.

Your 'mind' is a bunch of chemicals actually. There's a good chance you don't actually have free will. In fact, you can work daily on the assumption that you don't have free will, as my understanding of the topic (limited as it is) is that probabilities on a macroscopic level of random stuff happening like me jumping over the moon and landing in beyonce's bed are rather low (but much higher than that of a personal god existing). But all dis na big ingilish. And there is no soul.

Now I can't see these souls or gods anywhere, but you tell me they exist. Before I can take you seriously, as you are the one claiming there is something there, don't you think you should be providing proper proof before rhetorically asking 'ok?'. If I came to your house and told you pikkiwoki demands you give me your life savings (so I can give it to him of course, he happens to be busy just now sir) else after you die he will bury you in mud and prick you in the eye with a pin for eternity would you take me seriously?

So me and the little rascal are waiting sir. What is this god thing you speak of? As you've noted, it conveniently seems to be unseen. You don't need imaginery stuff to be a positive person. I, and many other productive people, do just fine without it.

Aaaand I'm wasting more time here...

Why good sir, I can't give you answer to that. That is one of the reasons I don't believe in god(s)..

Do ho ho ho

Like I said, remove god from the equation (if that is possible for you sir) and appeal to his decency. Does he have a sister? Can he take care of a girl if there's an accident and he injures her? Does he want ppl to consider him an a$$? Etc

12 yrs and I'm here in semi-foreveralone.jpg. Little Arrow

Sometimes it's fun watching the internecine battles among the religious. Atheists should have more of their own.
Op, personally, I get what you are saying about it not being in the koran but ppl do get stoned to death over stuff in the hadiths so it's serious as far as Islamic practices are concerned. Unless you think human lives are really that worthless, of course. We have scenarios like this from the guardian article linked earlier

"Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise". The sensual pleasures are graphically elaborated by Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), Koranic commentator and polymath. He wrote: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas." "

Of course it could be ppl just abusing a message, but these people seem very powerful and influential.

I really think it's cool the koran has added to the lexicon of engilish: houri. Just like how destinies child managed to get bootylicious in.

Why op, you don't come across as a "MUMU". You try sef oga. When ppl ask questions like these

"The question is, "is not acknowledging the reality of God a SIN?" Is the family treading the path of hell or what?"

it can be jarring. If an adult was going around saying Santa wouldn't be visiting you this xmas because you did something as innocuous as go to work on a Sunday, or had a drink with someone that works at DHL (2 sins in one in some muslim communities) it could be a little surreal even, despite having heard the argument before. And lots of religious seem to enjoy using that as an argument, I suspect to convince themselves.

Main point: If you have to make a point to the mother you would have to do so with arguments that do not involve god. As for religious dogma,guilt views, contact your local priest (he'll have billboards, phone number on all your friends contacts list, reign fire and brimstone on unbelievers on Sundays and whenever he's broke. Yes, he's damned if he does or doesn't in my book.) as the wise xtians here do not seem concerned. Maybe because there is nothing to worry about from that angle, for once

Avicenna: Man, this days, I just laff when they ask me to lead prayers, I'm always like, I'm leading you to hell, hahahaha.

^^^^^^
Yeah, I had that too. Or something, I don't know, I memorized some stuff I didn't understand, not even that much. Then there was a goat killed and a party, and then they let the lessons chill. Now I can't even remember fatiha (I can't even remember if that's the name of the sura, if that's what they're called). Why they kill the goat? And the stuff I memorized was from a small book, but they told that was the full koran, except without the tranlation etc. Is it that small? And that smsllish 99 book, the jazz strong for that one. At least that's what I was told