Steep:
without the concept of God there is no absolutely right and wrong.

The issue of morality isn't that simple. Even if you bring gods into the equation, the problem still remains.

There are different religions today, with different gods who claimed to be the creator of the universe, and hence the source of the moral laws, if any, in them.

So far, no god has been proven to be the creator of the universe, and therefore, no god can lay a claim to objective morality.

Morality among theists is still highly subjective, but it moves from being subjective among humans, to being subjective among gods.

god A says eating pork is wrong. god B says it's okay. That's the case we have today.

If you want to make a case for objective morality, you need to first prove the source of it, A.K.A, the god, and then prove that the moral laws set by this god are indeed from it.

Because from what it seems, moral laws, are a purely human thing. And rather than seen as subjective or objective, they appear to be somewhat progressive.

Lucifyre:
Normally you hear the bible is God's word given and written by divine inspiration, so most people take it as God's words literally which it is said to be. So if it's God's words and "God is not an author of confusion", wouldn't the bible literally NOT contradict itself?! So i wanted to do the whole bible in a year thing and ive began to notice some things just don't add up and in good faith i'ld like open minded christians(those who read their bibles not my pastor said), if there are any here to explain these things to me.

I think most of these contradictions have contributed to the several denominations(10,000+) of Christianity even though they claim to hear from one God. They have different doctrines and interpret the bible differntly while hearing from the same God. With the massive irony being that they don't even agree with the religion where they originated from which is Judaism as jews don't believe in Jesus and Jesus was a jew so they stick to the old testament. Even christians generally don't unanimously agree on the books included in the bible. Some are totally removed while some extraz are added in some denominations e.g Catholic

Sorry for the tangent but anyways the main iss is i'm trying to make sense of some of these things that don't add up or are contradictions. I'll share one today to discuss and more later.

According to the bible, Adam was the first man on earth, while Eve the first woman. They birhted the first procreated people Cain and Abel. We all know what went down between them. After cain killed Abel, God cursed him and put a mark on him. Here's the part i can't explain (GEN 4 v 13-16). Cain made the following statement: "Whoever finds me would kill me" and God responded “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

If they're the first people on earth who are these other people that are being referred to that could find and kill Cain

It helps if you see the bible as what it is, which is a collection of books, rather than a single unit.

The bible is a collection of books written by different authors and compiled over time. Claims of divine inspiration are about as useful as sprinkling magic dust over it. It's just a claim, made by one, or a few books in there, which is interpreted to make the entire collection seem more credible.

Simply put, it's a meaningless claim.

In addition to that, I think another mistake you're making is trying to treat genesis as a historical book. Claims made by the book, and any other book must first the proven and substantiated before they can be accepted as true.

So far, we've found zero evidence of the claims about humans or creation in general made by the authors of the book of genesis

Cekpo34:
Data from Think Tanks such as, Pew Research, shows that more Nigerians, especially the youths, are becoming atheists and agnostics as day passes by . However, it is not clear why this demography is growing. The dominant explanation has been the secularism thesis which assumes that the movement from the primitive sacred to modern secular is driven by science.

But Nigeria, in my opinion, is yet to attain the Comptian positive or scientific age for obvious reasons. Thus, secularism may not sufficiently explain the rising number of nonbelievers in Nigeria.

BIG QUESTIONS FOR ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

1) How did you become a #NigerianAtheist or agnostic?

Agnostic here

It wasn't a simple decision that happened in one day. you could consider it a journey that took place over a long period of time.

It started as a mild curiosity about certain things being said by the bible, and then it evolved to claims being made by the bible (events, and so on), and then to the claims being made by other religions, and the philosophy of it all.

2) Where and when did it happen?

Nearly 10 years ago. I don't understand what you mean by 'where'

3) Why do you think that decision is, presently, justified?

Justified to whom? Justified how?

Please share your story and enlighten others.

Caveat: your response will provide primary data for an ongoing research. You, through your moniker, will be acknowledged.

AudioMonkey:


You mean atheists are empty, they reject theism and at the same time, they don't have their own perspectives about life, origin, existence and the rest?

If you say my stand is wrong, then you should be able to offer me the right stand.

You seem to be painting somewhat of a false dichotomy here.

Just because we reject the positions held by theism on the origin of life, and existence, doesn't mean we necessarily have to have our alternative position or theory.

Most atheists and agnostics reject the theistic positions due to lack of evidence. If you make a claim without any verifiable supporting evidence to back it up, then I am under no obligation to believe it.

Claims about the origin of life and existence made by theists are still yet to be proven in any way. Hence our lack of belief.

Permit my interjection sir

TenQ:

Will you agree that
1. Just as NDE experiences, Spiritual experiences are SUBJECTIVE experiences

I can agree that experiences that seem to be termed "spiritual" are highly subjective.

2. Just as NDE experiences are real to the person experiencing it, Spiritual experiences are REAL to those who experience them

this is the point i actually wanted to touch on. I think this depends on what you mean by "real". Let me explain.

I hope we can all agree that human consciousness is incredibly complex. I assure you this isn't an attempt at evasion. We know due to certain conditions, people can experience certain things that may seem subjectively "real" to them, but clearly non-existent to the rest of the populace.

For example, people with schizophrenia can report seeing things and even hearing voices that are not there. Even things like insomnia and prolonged sleep deprivation have been shown to lead to some hallucinations of some sort. Same with things like psychedelic drugs and so on.

The reason I'm making reference to these hallucinations is that they seem to fall into the category of things that appear real to the person experiencing them, but not to other people.

Now, I'm not trying to use these as a reason to dismiss these things completely, I think these sort of examples raise more questions about the nature of consciousness, like I pointed out before.

3. Just as there is no physical proof of NDE experiences, there are no physical proofs of Spiritual [/i]

Now to those on the outside especially skeptics:
Would their best approach be to
1. Take those experiences with a grain of salt
OR
2. Begin to fight and dispute that such experiences can only be real if they can be proved physically.

The second approach seem to the the disposition of many Atheists on Nairaland.

I think I fall into the first category. I don't accept just any experience as true, just as I wouldn't accept any halluciation as necessarily true or real. But I'm also not too quick to dismiss these things as falsehoods either. Like I said earlier, it raises more questions about the nature of consciousness, which unfortunately, we don't currently have the answer to.

Nsogbu001:
Jesus is a Jew as we were told and now the Jews don't even know about him.
I hope we are on the right track. Somebody should enlighten us.
Constructive opinions


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBlXX11Ls4k

The Jews knowing or not knowing about Jesus has absolutely no bearing on whether the claims made about him in the bible are true.

While there are several things that could be said about the nature of the "survey" taken, it wouldn't have much bearing on whether the bible is true or not.

That question is one you'll have to embark on independently.

elated177:
Wilgrea7 is also godwrites.

I assure you I am not.

Thanks for the input

Maynthemayn:

I want to say 2 things.
Firstly, even if we have evidence of “Uncaused First-Cause of Everything” it doesn’t mean it is “God”, if you look at the argument supporting this notion, the attributes, features, qualities and characteristics of this “ Uncaused First-Cause of Everything” does not tally or correspond to the Monotheistic definition of God, so even if someone accepts this “ Uncaused First-Cause of Everything” it doesn’t mean they accept theism, hence still reject Monotheist Gods.

I agree .... The idea of an uncaused first cause doesn't automatically translate to a "god". The characteristics of this uncaused first cause first need to be identified before we can call it anything resembling a 'god', at least as described by theists.

Secondly, i think “nothing” is much more than just the conventional definition of it.
Nothing comes from No—Thing, not a thing.
thing.
The term thing came from the Old English ping, meaning "entity", "being", "body", or "matter".
So Nothing exist, without being in existence.

TenQ:
Good morning!

A great morning to you as well.

I will like to make a clarification before proceeding.
1. As a person, I believe that spiritual things should be explainable to some extent
2. All these discuss by me are just THEORIES and by no means a claim of reality
3. As such, they are NOT Doctrine but attempts to comprehend spiritual truths.



Yes, I think that the "spiritual plane" is a somewhat higher dimension, like 4D for example, and we humans only experience a slice of this 4D, which is our 3d space?

I also think that humans may even have hypothetically Dimensions like 3.2D or 3.01D or 3.6D because we are also spiritual beings (according to the bible) and our dispositions to spiritual matters is a function of how higher up than 3.0D we are.

Once again, Interesting theory. I can't argue much against your belief, as we both lack evidence for or against the position to either substantiate or refute it. So it more or less falls into the category of an unfalsifiable claim.

However there's something I wanted to point out. When thinking about the idea of something like a 3.2D or 3.4D object, in relation to how you described us humans, I don't think such quasi dimensions can truly exist. Let me try to explain.

Your idea seems to focus not on the actual simultaneous existence in multiple 3d planes, which would make up 4d. Instead, it focuses more on the object's ability to experience these parallel planes by something you called "disposition of spiritual matters". While the term seems rather ambiguous, and more like a blanket term for any sort of claimed unverified knowledge, I won't touch on that for now.

As a simple analogy, take 2 cubes, one measuring 5x4x10 cm, and another measuring 5x4x6 cm. We'll agree that both objects are very much 3d objects, although one is shorter than the other.

Now imagine these cubes were somehow sentient. One might notice that the other seems "longer" than it, seems it seemingly occupies more space in 3 dimensions. But it wouldn't mean the shorter one is any less of a 3d being. Even if a different shape, like a cylinder or prism were to be brought into the equation, they would still be regarded as fully 3d shapes, even though their structure would be quite different.

Similarly, even if we were to assume a 4th dimension exists, and we call it this "spiritual" plane. People's experience of other parts of this dimension by virtue of something like a "disposition of spiritual matters" would only translate to them being able to notice more of the same 4d space, and not necessarily being in a quasi fractional form of 3d.

Just as someone with partial blindless would still very much be a 3d being despite being only able to see a tiny portion of what normal people see, a 4d being would still very much be 4d, despite only having a fraction of the experience other alleged 4d beings have.

I think evidence of NDE is compelling enough as a proof of Life existing after death just from this aspect of NDE alone.

Out of Body Experience:
It takes just one example of an OBE where the subject is able to see or describe physical events AFTER his death that is technically impossible. Eg. A revived patient describing exactly what transpired in his physical environment while he was dead.
Just one true example is enough: any objections to this is just an excercise in denial.

This kind of OBE proves either that
1. An Immaterial component of man exist or
2. Life continues after death.

I feel like these things just more or less raise more questions about the nature of consciousness, and rightly so. There are several theories on the nature of these things and why they happen, but still, we don't know anything for sure to reach a concrete conclusion.

I'm quite aware of the situations where some people recalled what happened in the room after they were "clinically dead", and even in one story, what was said in the next room. These are quite interesting things, but I still feel like the idea that somehow, this happened because their "spirit" or "soul" somehow wandered around due to some higher dimensional phenomenon, is just one among the many possible attempts, at explaining something we don't quite understand yet.

There are alternative theories, like the idea that consciousness is a thing which cannot exist for a long period of time outside a brain, and disintegrates shortly after death, which explains why the consciousness can pick up certain information about the surrounding, and only relay them after said person comes back to life.

Just like how you can hold your breath under water for a while but eventually need oxygen after some time, similarly the human consciousness can observe these things but requires a brain to translate them or interpret them, or else like a flame, it eventually burns out and fades away.

Once again, there's no definitive proof for any of these claims. And as much as I hate to relegate things to the "we just don't know yet" category. We truly, do not know.

Actually, the most plausible explanation is the Existence of an Uncaused First-Cause of Everything.
Why?
1. In our physical universe (eliminating randomness) every event must have a cause.
2. Our physical universe plus all the scientific laws has a beginning
3. In our physical universe, infinite regress of Cause and Effect is impossible
Implication:
Therefore, whatever Caused our Universe must not be subject to the Laws and Principles that apply in our space.

Your argument seems to be (correct me if I am Wrong): that whatever Caused our Universe must also have its own cause.

Not really.

My argument has mostly been that the question of what caused our universe, eventually leads back to a more fundamental question, which is why something exists rather than nothing.

The only possible answers are that something has always existed, and that something came from nothing. Both positions are equally absurd. Because we're left asking the question 'Why?'

Since we know our universe had a beginning, you posit that higher dimensions exist, and at the highest dimension, something has always been existing. You call this something a "God". You're arguing in favor of the "something has always existed" position.

I only brought up the idea that if we agree that what caused the universe cannot be subject to the laws within the universe, then BOTH positions, are equally feasible in some sense. Or equally absurd if you will.

I'm not advocating for either. And we've both agreed that our understanding of our current universe would be insufficient in comprehending these things. So to me, they are both equally unfalsifiable claims, and it painfully, regrettably and shamefully leads us to the uncomfortable phrase "we don't know"

Unfortunately, this assumption has violated the implication that, whatever Caused our Universe cannot be subject to our Physical laws.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that this Cause of our Universe cannot be necessarily caused else, we are subjecting it to laws that exist after our universe was created .

The Question of this Uncaused First-Cause of Everything being a SOMETHING or SOMEONE is for another Debate!

LordReed:


Actually we have observed effects that preceed causes so it is not always true that causes preceed effects.

That's an interesting concept. Could you please give an example?

Also, @TenQ, this is a little off topic, so i decided to add it as just a side note.

You've mentioned that in our universe, we understand the law of cause and effect, and how something cannot come from nothing. And for that reason, the universe must have been caused.

While I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of something from nothing, i wanted to point something out

We've observed that by virtue of the nature of OUR universe, something can't come from nothing. Simply put, everything in our universe obeys the law of cause and effect. But what if that law only applies to universes? Let me explain

Our universe includes all of space and everything in it. But space itself isn't nothing. Space is a something. It can stretch and squeeze under gravity. It contains particles. Even empty space is not nothing.

What if outside "universes", what if in true nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no properties... What if in such a phenomenon, something could come into existence?

What if the only property of true nothingness, was to birth something?

Now i don't necessarily agree with this either, but i just thought it was an interesting thing to think about.

My apologies for the late response.

TenQ:

At the risk of overstretching my apologies and illustration using the Body, Soul and Spirit.
I believe that humans were created to be able to function in both the physical space AND the spiritual space. The fact that we all inherited a defective Spirit (which would have helped us to function in the higher dimensions) has made us locked more or less into the 3D spatial dimension.

One of the hypothetical questions I asked was:
Is it possible to have a non-integer dimension like 3.1D or 3.6D or 3.9D?

My argument is that it would be technically impossible for a person in 2D space to comprehend anything from the 3D space because, ANYTHING he sees from the 3D space will have the form of 2D and this doesn't improve his knowledge of the higher dimensions one bit.

Okay. So if I'm getting this correctly, you believe the "spiritual plane" is a somewhat higher dimension, like 4D for example, and we humans only experience a slice of this 4D, which is our 3d space?

Or do you believe that the spiritual plane is a somewhat 3d plane as well, which runs parallel to our physical plane and together with ours makes up a larger 4d plane. And we are somewhat 4d beings only able to experience a part of reality (3D) due to our alleged defective nature?

I think experiences of NDE isn't supposed to show us Religion or the way of Salvation BUT the fact that life CONTINUES after death.

Moreover, I think NDEs is like travelling to a strange planet and experiencing a small subset of the environment.
Eg. If an Alien is transported temporarily to planet Earth for a few hours, his experience will depend on where he landed.
Is it somewhere in
- the Amazon Forest
- New York city
- Ojuelegba in Lagos
- Kalahari Desert
- Alaska etc
Of course, there could be variations in experiences even if there are some overlap of similarities.

NDE just tell us that life continues after death, QED!

NDEs can be a really complex subject. One reason i tend to doubt them is the point which I mentioned earlier. And that the fact that NDEs are heavily skewed in favor of the information the recipent already knows.

Using the alien analogy, if an alien somehow got "transported" to earth for a few hours, and landed in the amazon for example. But claimed to see its dead family members from its home planet, telling them things only they would know, it calls the so called transportation experience into account don't you think?

I'm not sure what NDEs are, or why they happen the way they do. Could they hint at life after death? Possibly. But the data right now is far too little to draw any reasonable conclusion.

Also it makes you wonder about the nature of "death" in regards to the "higher dimensions" narrative.

If we cannot fully comprehend our existence within our spatial dimension, what hope do we have to comprehend a higher spatial dimension?

I think it is like a computer asking humans how many gigabytes of storage is installed in them or how fast our CPU is.

At a point, we must be humble enough to know that some frontiers of knowledge is beyond us. Such is at the Level of the Uncaused First-Cause of Everything aka God!

The best of our questions in unraveling God would be very silly!

So I've been thinking about this, and I actually have quite a bit to say on this issue.

Firstly, you've talked about the idea that some things are just beyond us. Like the idea of the uncaused first cause.

My question is, if such a physics-defying idea can exist "outisde our dimension" assuming higher dimensions exist, why can't the idea of something coming from nothing exist in such higher dimensions as well?

These are 2 ideas which seem to defy our knowledge of the universe. And you seem to choose one over the other, for a reason that could be used to excuse the occurrence of both.

Also, I'm not necessarily in favor of either. I don't subscribe to the idea that something came from nothing. But i also don't subscribe to the idea of an unmoved mover. Because it all leads back to the same question. Which is why there is something at all, and why this something is the way it is.

For you, you've seem to push this question to higher dimensions, and label it a God. But it doesn't really answer the question.

At the end of the day, we're still stuck with an unexplainable something which is incredibly complex, and for which we don't understand the mechanism or reasons for it's existence.

Apologies in advance. Been qute busy, so my responses may be a bit slow.

TenQ:

I think we just have to get to a point where we conclude that it is impossible to comprehend with our existing facilities our present reality because it seems we are just a tiny subset of something infinitely higher than us.

I agree with you that we can't comprehend the totality of our present reality with our current tools. However, I'm not as hasty to attribute this to the possible hypothetical higher dimension, or something "infinitely higher than us".

Lots of things in the past have been attributed to things, or beings higher than us. gods. But today we understand these things as perfectly natural processes. Lighting doesn't happen because thor strikes a hammer.

Until we can somehow verify the existence of these higher things which make our understanding of reality, even in the future impossible, I don't think there's any reason to adopt such a view regarding the nature of reality.

I guess as Christians, we have resolved this totality of higher dimensions to be from God the Creator and Source of Everything.
Atheists on the other hand seem to believe that everything can be resolved within our present realities with more knowledge.

I don't think the position of the atheist is necessarily a problem.

Just as there's no reason to believe that higher dimensions can't exist, i also think there's no reason to believe that things can't be understood in our present reality by better tools and knowledge.

The difference is that one gives up in trying to explain reality by simply attributing it to something higher, and "beyond them" while the other just looks to try to improve it's current understanding of reality.

Look how far we've come. Lighning, sicknesses, and other things that were attributed to things or beings above us, have been shown to be very normal and understandable processes.

Sure we may never understand some things. But there's no reason to believe that we won't completely understand them either.

Who's stance is wrong and who's stance is right? Except if it can be proved that it is impossible to have a higher dimension AND it can be shown that we can attain a complete knowledge of our 3D space, I think the stance of the Christians is reasonable!

I don't think the burden of proof should be shifted away from the person making the claim here.

If someone makes a claim about higher dimensions, then the burden of proof is on them. There are other equally "possible" claims that try to explain reality. But without any evidence of such, it would really be difficult to take them serious.

Also, I'm curious as to how proving an impossibility would work, especially in this scenario. Like, how exactly would we prove higher dimensions to be impossible?

How do we go about proving that something, which is claimed to lie outsude our entire scope of existence, or experimentation, as non existent?

Even if we somehow understood everything about how our existence came to be, and how everything works, we've agreed that this knowledge would only apply to "our dimension"

How are we supposed to somehow jump "beyond our dimension" to prove that this same "beyond our dimension" does not exist.

It seems like an endless circle that ends before it could even begin

At least in our 3D spatial dimension, we know that infinite regress of Cause and Effect is impossible. It would be nativity to try to comprehend a higher dimension by what exist in our own dimension. Why?
1. Our existence is strictly a minor subset of the higher dimensions
2. Things that exist in a higher dimension may be completely absent in our own dimension.
Eg
In our dimension, Nothing can come into existence from nothing
However,
It is possible that Nothing come out into existence in our dimension from nothing if such thing is brought into our existence from a higher dimension.

I'm not trying to make a case for infinte regress here, or things coming into existence from nothing. Perhaps you slightly misunderstood my point.

I was trying to make a case for several generations of "creators" where the credit of each subsequent creation is given to the preceding creator and not the "first cause".

Using your dimensions analogy. Imagine if there exists 10 dimensions of space in reality. Let's imagine an "uncaused first cause" creating conscious 9d beings, which then on their own, choose to create 8d beings, and the chain continues down to 3d.

Just as the conscious creation of Microsoft is attributed to Bill gates, and not his grandfather, our creation, would hypothetically be attributed to these 4d beings, and not the 10d one.

Of course there's no proof for any of these claims, and they remain purely theoretical. But i just thought it was interesting to mention nonetheless, since we're talking about "possibilities"

TenQ:

Christians have always thought that a human being is a Trinity of
A Body: Which is the physical biological self
A Soul: Our Consciousness defined by our Will, Emotion and Intellect
A Spirit: Which is the component of our being able to interact with the higher dimensions eg God. The only thing is that we all were born with a defective Spirit (like in comatose)

Each of these component is fully US in three different dimensions.
-With our Body, we interact with the Physical Environment
-With our Spirit, we interact with the Spiritual Environment
-With our Soul, we interact with our Internal/Personal Environment

With our Spirit, we have
1. Conscience: Innate ability to distinguish between write and wrong, good and evil.
2. Intuition: Spontaneous knowledge/awareness which has nothing to do with learning or processing

Why all these background?
Depending on how damaged or healthy our spirit is, we are made available to the spirit environment good or bad.


In other words, even though you are correct in your submission, it is not impossible to interact with the higher spiritual dimensions. Unfortunately, it is ALWAYS at a subjective level

While I do think your explanation of the body, spirit and soul are quite interesting, I feel like they seem to fail in taking several things into account.

But before I continue on this point, I want to make sure I'm not mischaracterizing or misrepresenting your position. So please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that the spirit and soul, in addition to the body, make us somewhat more than just 3-dimensional beings?

That by the alleged existence of these things, we are perhaps 4th dimensional beings, experiencing multiple 3-dimensions at once, just as a cube can be seen as a collection of multiple slices of a square?

This is exactly the Problem:
An Agnostic is first an atheist looking for a TANGIBLE evidence (usually physical evidence)

This is not impossible, but not everyone is given the favour. Many Atheists for instance has abandoned atheism because they had a compelling Near Death Experience (NDE). Unfortunately , even this is a SUBJECTIVE experience of the person who had the NDE.

I think NDEs are also interesting. And if someone chooses to follow a certain religion after an NDE, then good for them. However, from my knowledge of NDEs, they seem incredibly skewed in favor of information the recipient already knows. For example, I'm yet to see an atheist or another theist who had never heard about Jesus or Christianity, have an NDE and come back to talk about him.

NDEs seem heavily reliant on the information the individual already knows (not necessarily believes) at the point of death.

As far as evidence goes, there's no other credible form of evidence we can really turn to. So it becomes a tricky situation. Very similar to elements A and B in the flatland example I gave earlier. So basically, it becomes a case of "we don't know", and "there's no way for us to know right now".

Even without any compelling experience, logic tells me that the multilayers of interdependent SYSTEMS that make up our existence as the apex biological being cannot be a spontaneous accident which just happened to evolve us and Programmed every thing.

I've never made the claim that reality or our existence happened by "accident"

No problems: fastest way to read a book.
LOL!


There are too many things the limitations of our 3D spatial dimensions will not allow us to know. The statistical odds of a planet like earth is staggering to say the least.
The statistical odds (in 3D) for the Programming of Living things is impossible.

It's like saying, given several sets of the complete alpha numeric characters AND an infinite number of times to randomly juggle them up, is it possible to arrive at the complete C/C++ code with required header to print on a VDU "Hello World!"?
Even if it is possible, the code is not useful until there exists a language Interpreter or Compiler.
+Our DNA is such a complex code complete with its compiler/interpreter
+Our Soul is such a complex code complete with its compiler/interpreter

It is impossible for me to think that thede all happened by accident: I point to One higher than my Dimension as the author.

I agree with you that complexity exists, and this is something that does plague my mind. I will try to rephrase it this way.

1. Something exists (matter, laws of physics, dimensions, everything that is not nothing)
2. This something is incredibly complex

The question isn't resolved by pointing to a higher dimension. Because then we need to ask why a more complex and higher dimension would exist.

Even if you point to a God, a god is technically the highest level of complexity. Something we are not supposed to be able to fathom, but something nonetheless. So why is there something rather than nothing? And why is this something the way it is?

That's the real question. Higher dimensions, gods, and so on don't solve the question. they just push them a step further. But the fundamental question still remains.

TenQ:

So many things point in this direction in our physical realm
+The Law of Entropy forbid infinite regress of cause and effect
+ The natural laws have not always existed
+ Matter had not always existed

Yes, you are correct. However, what I'm trying to avoid, is making the same mistake you mentioned earlier. that even if a 2d being had complete understanding of the 2d plane, it wouldn't equate to an understanding of higher dimensions.

These things you've listed are things we understand about OUR dimension. If reality includes higher dimensions, then it is entirely possible that these constraints may simply not exist there.

Even if their are higher dimensions, the Creator Himself must be the Highest so that everything/other dimensions exist only in Him.

Depends on what you mean by creator. Let me explain.

Bill gates is known as the creator of microsoft. However, bill gates is not eternal. He was also created, i.e, given birth to. I don't think anyone would logically refer to Bill gates' parents as the conscious creators of microsoft. Sure you can credit them indirectly, but the ideas, innovation and effort that went into making microsoft was the conscious effort by Bill gates, not his parents.

Similarly, I think it is fully possible for a creator to also have a beginning. If higher dimensions exist, and beings in the higher dimensions possess something similar to what we call consciousness, then they can, on their own volition, if they have the ability, create other beings.

Infinite regress isn't necessarily violated, but the conscious effort of the specific creation isn't also attributed to the "first creator"

This is another way i see it

elated177:
Wilgrea7, how can you call them unfounded when you can't disprove them?

You can't state for a fact that MouthAction was not initiated or invented by homosexuals. Give it a rest. You can't, as always, argue with this one.

It pains me a little that I have to now somewhat give a lecture in english.

If you google the meaning of unfounded, it's defined as "having no foundation or basis in fact".

Your claim that mouth action was invented by homosexuals falls into that category. You, the person who made the claim, has not provided the slightest bit of evidence to support your claim. And since there is no verified fact in your claim, then it is unfounded. I hope I've been able to explain it to you.

Also, asking me to prove a negative, when you're the one who made the claim, is simply intellectually dishonest. If you make a claim, like the one you're making now, then the burden of proof is on you. Asking me to disprove what you haven't proven simply doesn't make sense.

Plus, I've already told you that none of us can accurately ascertain the first time mouth action was performed on a human. So asking me to disprove something based on information neither of us possess, simply doesn't work.

elated177:
Wilgrea7, you don't know when the first homosexuality occurred.

Correct.

You don't know when the first MouthAction occurred between a male and female.

Also correct

How, then, are sure that MouthAction wasn't introduced into heterosexual relationship by a homosexual? How are you sure that fellation and cunnilingu.s didn't originate with homosexuality?

How sure are you that it was? How sure are you that mouth action did in fact originate from a homosexual relationship?

You don't know. And neither do I. But I'm not the one who created a thread about an unproven claim. You are.

Is Kamasutra story older than MouthAction?

Of course not. The kamasutra is just one of the older recorded writings on the different ways heterosexual humans have pleasured themselves.

Humans are quite curious creatures. And there's no reason to believe something like mouth action could have only be "invented" by someone who was homosexual.

So once again, the claim you're making is unfounded, and unproven.

elated177:
Wilgrea7, when was the first homosexual act? Do you know?

No I don't know.

Not everyone who engages in, or notices people engaging in a certain act bothers to document it for future generations. Plus there's also the issue of many ancient writing being lost, or difficult to decipher.

So because of that, it's impossible to know when the first act of homosexuality happened in humans. It's also impossible to know when the first act of "mouth action" occurred.

And above all, it is important to note that correlation does not equal causation

TenQ:

I meant:
Of course it is impossible to be unequivocally sure that higher dimensions than 3D do NOT exist in the Universe because, even if it exists, there is no way we can be sure using the information available to our senses. It takes only the being in the higher dimensions to make us enter the knowledge of his dimension.
In other words , such knowledge will remain perpetually SUBJECTIVE!

Yes, but here's the thing. I feel like a 2-d object, even if taken out of it's current subsection of 3-d reality, would still only be able to experience a 2d subsection of 3d reality, albeit another one. A true 2d object IN the surface of a cube can be moved to another surface, but i doubt its senses would permit it to experience 3d reality. it would have to somehow be transformed into a 3d object first.

The implication is that their is no physical instrument in our dimension that will be useful to proving or disproving the higher dimensions.

True

Unfortunately, the default of Agnostics is that they do not have enough compelling physical EVIDENCE of the existence of the higher dimensions hence it is outrightly REJECTED.
Are Agnostic seeking or they have concluded?

I don't think any agnostic holds the position that they have "concluded" that gods or higher dimensions do not exist. Although I'll say i can only speak for myself.

I'm more than open to the idea of gods, or higher dimensions existing as people have defined them. But in the absence of evidence, I simply do not subscribe to the position that these things do exist. Although I'm not also saying that these things CAN'T exist. I'm just saying due to the lack of evidence, I'm not convinced that they do.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine 2 entities in flatland. I'll call them A and B. A says to B that their world, flatland is in a 3-d space called an office, and it is surrounded completely by yellow indescribable shapes.

Could he be right? Absolutely. But he could also be wrong. their flatland could be at the bottom of the ocean, or a room where nothing is yellow. In the absence of tangible evidence, it doesn't make much sense to believe one claim over the other.

You can use ChatGPT to summarise the story. Just type the prompt:
Summarise the Novel Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott.
You may not need to read the whole novel.

Thanks. I will do that.

Someone asked the Question:
Can something be created out of Nothing?

When the question is rephrased in a 2D space, the answer becomes very clear. Nothing in 2D space means absence of things in this space. It objects in 3D space will be completely invisible as long as there is no intersection of their plane of existence with the object. When an object in 3D space is brought into the 2D plane, there is a sudden appearance (to them, a creation from Nothing).

Of course I completely agree with this. It was one of the possible theories I thought about in relation to what happened at the big bang. It's an interesting concept to think about. But I'm afraid it once again falls into the category of things we don't know yet

Rom 4:17:
"(As it is written, I have made you a father of many nations, ) before him whom he believed, even God, who vivifies the dead, and calls those things which be not as though they were."

Let there be Light, and there was Light!

elated177:
El Elohe Yahshrael!


Yap!

Fell.atio and cunniling.us can both be traced to homosexuality.

Fellati.o was something that used to exist between two male homosexuals. It is very possible that the first man to perform cunniling.us on a woman was a homosexual and from there it spread. In fact, any man that revels in giving a woman head is most likely an ardent penis sucker as well.

Cunnili.ngus was something that used to occur between two female homosexuals, lesbians, before it was demonically introduced to male-female sexual relationship. Any woman who enjoys performing fell.atio on males is likely an expert in cun.nilingus affairs.

This may be hard for most people to accept. But, consider the origin of what you are doing.

Both fe.llatio and cunniling.us are not normal sexual practices, just as homosexuality is not a normal sexual practice.

Abstain from such abnormal practices.


El Elohe Yahshrael! Hallelu YAH!

You really sat down today, and decided to pull fake facts out of thin air. Humans, even heterosexual ones have been finding interesting ways to do the nasty since time immemorial.

The kamasutra (an ancient indian book) is proof that these things existed even among heterosexual couples.

I'm not necessarily advocating for these things, neither am I opposing them. I'm just telling you to get your facts right.

If you have to invent lies to push your narrative, then you need to find a better narrative.

TenQ:

This is the simplest within our reality as
1. Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible

I actually used to agree with this before. But after trying to study the nature and meaning of infinity, I've become a bit more on the fence here.

But that being said, even if infinite regress is impossible, there's still every possibility that the alleged gods could have their own gods, leading up to the 5th, 6th, or even 20th dimension. But like you said earlier, there's simply no way for us to know. [/quote]

2. Except if everything is like fractals: the more you look, the more you see! LOL!
The factor of infinity between one dimension and the next dimension is particularly interesting.

It truly is.

Just some thought Questions (has nothing to do with spiritualism)
If a 1D line space is curved into 2D plane, would the objects within even know that they have traversed a movement in 2D?
Or a 2D plane curved into a circle, would the objects within even know that they have traversed a movement in 3D?

In most cases, I don't think so. I want to use the example of a 2-d plane, or what you'll call flatland.

I believe for something to truly be 2d, it must not have any height. The inclusion of height just makes it a very, very incredibly short 3-d object.

If the 2d object cannot have any concept of height, then the object itself must have no height. Like a stain on a piece of fabric or something. It's existence lies completely within the boundary of the fabric.

If that's the case, then regardless of how a 2d plane is curved into 3d, the 2d object would not notice. It could observe that it arrives at it's starting point after traveling in a straight line after a long period of time, but i feel like it would consider that more or less a sort of maze, than to actually notice the curve in the 2d plane.

But again, that's just my theory. I could be wrong.

Also, it does lead to an interesting question. What if the 2d object is actually just a 3d object with an incredibly tiny and unnoticeable height? I think that just makes things really interesting.

Must spatial dimensions always be an integer?

Oh.. now this is even more complex. It's insane to think that there could be a 2.5d dimension. I admit. My human brain stops functioning just thinking about it.

TenQ:
I love your honesty in answering all my questions. I can only add my conclusion on the responses.

Of course it is impossible to be unequivocally sure that higher dimensions than 3D do NOT exist in the Universe because, even if it exists, there is no way we can be sure.

Exactly. I love the bolded statement.

The implication is that the best an atheist can be is Agnostic. Atheism is the end of the spectrum of certainty.

It also raises an issue, being Agnostic isn't a position of knowledge: it is a position of choice not to be bortherd with true reality.

I'm not sure I'd say agnosticism is a choice to not be bothered by reality. As an agnostic, the possible answers to questions like gods or higher dimensions do bother me.

But I also understand that there's a number of forms these answers could take, and I'm not too eager to choose one over the other in the lack of reasonable evidence. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the answers to these questions could be something completely different from what we could possibly fathom.

Check out the Satirical novel, Flatland!

"A Square" to the rest look insane, Unfortunately, he's the only one with the experience of lineland and spaceland.

I didn't know there was a novel. I once watched a video where the late Carl Sagan described flatland in an attempt to explain a possible 4th dimensional object (a tesseract). Perhaps I'll check out the novel.

In theory, the experiment should work as lost energies can be assumed to have entered the higher dimensions. In practice, I don't think any scientist have been able to demonstrate higher dimensions experimentally. I sometimes wonder if this elusive factor is not what we insert into our equations as CONSTANTS.

I agree with you!
If scientists in the 2D space have perfect scientific knowledge of their space, their knowledge will NOT be adequate in the 3D space?

My inference:
Knowledge of a higher dimension can only be subjective. There is no way of successfully bringing it into the Laboratory for examination. Concluding that a higher dimension doesn't exist based on the observations from the current lower dimension is a folly


Perfectly said.

A 3D personality can be completely be OUTSIDE the 2D space and he can also enter it or stand on it. Those in 2D may see only his cross-section presented to them as 2D.

Two parallel 1D or two Parallel 2D planes would be completely invisible to each other because of the nature of their constraints. (I'm not sure how a 3D space can relate to themselves in this same manner)


But I think I like this your description below.


I like this your example:
All lower dimensions may just be living in constraints within the higher dimensions. It reminds me of the scripture

Acts 17:27-28:
"That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being ; .... For we are also his offspring."

I honestly think this is the real meaning of dimensions where 0 D, 1 D, 2D and 3D are not stand-alone dimensions but are sunsets of the higher dimensions.

Well said

And If I may add @TenQ, ... even if higher dimensions of space existed, I feel like the nature of these alleged dimensions, or more accurately, the nature of "objective reality" would be the main issue.

For example, what if we are actually 4th dimensional beings experiencing several slices of 3d reality, just like a multiple slices of a cube make up the actual cube?

Or if higher dimensions truly exist, then how do we know whether things we refer to as "gods" have their own "gods" as well? The questions about the nature of a possible higher dimension are nearly infinite.

Nonetheless I think it is an interesting topic to consider.

TenQ:
Spatial dimensions are axes of space that we can move through like the x, y, and z axis that we can move through.

Let's go on a journey of dimensions by imagining a 3D space (as we are familiar with it).

Existence in Zero Dimension:
Zero Dimension is just an infinitesimally small point within a 3D space. A person within a zero Dimensional space is static and he would believe he's alone in the whole universe. Words like velocity, distance, Area, Volume or Space would be nonsensical to him.

Existence in One Dimension:
One Dimension is an assembly of infinitely large numbers of zero dimensions in a straight line. A person within a one dimensional space within a 3D space is unaware of the fact that he's in a 3D space. It is impossible for him to know if he's in the X or y or z directions as these are meaningless to him. Measurements of distance, speed make sense to him, however, he cannot comprehend the meaning of area or volume or space. You will find it difficult to convince him that it is possible to have a higher dimension than 1D.
A paradox:
even when he is seen from the 3D space as alined in x or y or xz directions, it is oblivious to him.

Existence in Two Dimensions:
A Two Dimensional space is an assembly of infinitely large numbers of one dimensions in a straight line stacked on upon the other. A person within a Two dimensional space within a 3D space is unaware of the fact that he's in a 3D space. It is impossible for him to know if he's in the xy or yz or xz planes as these are meaningless to him.
Measurements of area, displacement, velocity, volume, area density make sense to him, however, he cannot comprehend the meaning of area or volume or height. You will find it difficult to convince him that it is possible to have a higher dimension than 2D.
Paradox:
When an object is placed in a closed loop, he believes that it is scientifically impossible to bring out the object from within the loop without breaking the loop.
Of course, those of us who live within the 3D space will laugh at his folly. When such a feat is done before him by someone in the 3rd dimension, he concludes that it must be a miracle

Existence in Three Dimensions:
A Three Dimensional space is an assembly of infinitely large numbers of Two dimensions stacked on upon the other. A person within a Three dimensional space within a 4D space is unaware of the fact that he's in a 4D space. It is impossible for him to know if he's in the xyza or xyzb or xyzd volumes as these are meaningless to him.
Measurements of area or volume or height, displacement, velocity, volume, area density make sense to him, however, he cannot comprehend the meaning of anything outside the 3D.

Just as the person in the 1D or 2D space, You will find it difficult to convince him that it is possible to have a higher dimension than 3D.

Paradox:
When an object is placed in a closed volume, he believes that it is scientifically impossible to bring out the object from within the volume without breaking the volume.
Of course, those who live within the 4D space will laugh at his folly. When such a feat is done before him by someone in the 4th dimension, he concludes that it must be a miracle

Christians have always spoken about God, Angels, Demons and the Spiritual Realm which in this case is at dimensions higher than 3 dimensions. We cannot tell if their dimensions is the 4th or 5th or 6th....1000th.
Atheists understandably think that any dimension higher than 3D is a figment of imagination.

Note:
Time is NOT a dimension: time is a measure of intervals between events in 1D, 2D, 3D , 4D space

Greetings TenQ

I'm quite excited to engage in this topic if I'm being honest. Even though we'll probably arrive at different conclusions, I think there are a number of things here we both agree on.

Ever since I stumbled on the idea of string theory as a possible TOE a few years back, I've been fascinated by the possibility of higher dimensions, like 4th, 5th and so on, and the implications it would have on what we call "reality". So maybe I can share my personal opinion on this.

Question:
1. Is it reasonable to conclude unequivocally that higher dimensions than 3D do NOT exist in the Universe?

Absolutely not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it's also not evidence of presence either. I'm open to the possibility of these things existing. However, in the absence of any tangible evidence, I tend to maintain the standard "we don't know yet" position.

2. What kind of experiments would you advise scientists in the 2D world conduct to prove the existence of the 3D space?

Interesting question. Quite difficult to answer. I once read about a test some scientists were planning to conduct to test for the existence of other dimensions.

According to what I remember (I might be wrong), they planned to smash 2 particles together at an immensely high speed, and if total energy of the system dropped or rose after the collision, then it would be postulated that the energy deficit went into or came from "another dimension".

Not the most accurate test in my opinion, but I just thought to mention it.

3. Let's assume that by some Stroke of massive intelligence, scientists in the 2D space have perfect scientific knowledge of their space, would this knowledge be adequate in the 3D space?

Of course not.

4. We know that a person in a higher dimension can interact with those in the lower dimensions: is the converse possible?

This depends on what you mean by "interact". A 3 dimensional being can most definitely interact with elements in the 2-dimensional being's purview, but I don't think the reverse is possible.

But then again, there's another way I see this multi-dimensional hypothesis.


Take a 2 and 3-dimensional being in a 3-dimensional world. The 2 dimensional being exists in the 3-dimensional world, but is only able to experience a tiny subset of the "objective reality". I would say the same thing for possible higher dimensions.

If higher dimensions do exist, they won't be this external thing. Rather we would be the ones restricted to only a subsection of true reality. Kind of like how a cube is a complete object, and the surface of the cube represents only a subsection.

OLAADEGBU:
Gone!

I'm still yet to see you show how the bible, or in this case Christianity is in any way superior to the other listed religions

OLAADEGBU:


I've already supplied the evidence here. All you need to do is to decipher it with your God given physical senses.

Okay... Let's take a look at it then.

OLAADEGBU:


With my limited knowledge and my physical senses I have the evidence of God's existence as I have said earlier. When I look at a building, how do I know that there was a builder? I couldn't want a better evidence that there was a builder than to have the building in front of me. I don't even need faith to know that there was a builder. All I need are eyes that can see and a brain that can think.

This analogy doesn't really work in your favor here. Let me explain.

When you see a building, you can tell it was built. That's about it. Seeing a building tells you nothing about who built it, or how many people built it.

Likewise the universe. It barely tells you anything about the nature of it's cause, apart from the fact that it was caused. Although that idea can be argued against, like i said, I'll agree with you on that one for now.

The same principle applies to the existence of God. When I look at creation, how can I know that there was a Creator? Creation reveals to me that there is a Creator. I couldn't want a better evidence that there is a Creator than to have the creation in front of me. I don't need faith to believe in a Creator, all I need are eyes that can see and a brain that can think.

I'll give you a simple analogy. You see a building and probably assume that tons or hundreds of people worked together to build it. Not just one person.

What part of the universe gives you the impression that it was made by A creator and not a multitude of them?

What part of the universe tells you anything remotely useful about the nature of this said cause?

But if I want the builder to do something for me, then I need to have faith in the builder. Likewise God, for

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).

If you need to know more about God you need faith based on His Word and World.

From your statements.. the alleged builder is

Male
Singular
A speaker of some sort
Somewhat interested in rewarding you

How did you arrive at these attributes? What part of your observation of the universe revealed this to you?

MaxInDHouse:


I really love this!

Me too

The meaning of the title GOD is SUPREME BEING

Ok .. we're off to a good start.

therefore the supreme one should have something to do for the benefit of all those living under His domain.

How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion? How is "doing something for the benefit of those living under HIS domain" a necessary factor for being a supreme being? And how did you know its a He.

Many religions often claim they know the one who created everything which is common but then what are the things their God is presently doing to prove they know the creator for real?

Interesting question.

The one and only true God

Which you've still not proven

promised that during the time people globally will be fighting against one another over who should rule. He will send His spirit out to gather from the four corners of the earth people and they will use His word to settle all their disparities among themselves, divert their resources into production of food and information materials, erased the making buying selling and usage of weapons and vow never to raise weapons against anyone again.

You've not proven said God's existence. You need to pass that stage before talking about what it said, and how exactly it fulfilled its promise.

Today this God has fulfilled His promise just as said, the world continue to build destructive weapons and storing them up they also train their young men and women to fight and kill for nationalistic movements all these costs them billions of dollars while many in their societies are suffering without food.
No religion has successfully excluded their members from all these except just one that's studying the words of the God who claims He will make PEACE reign among His worshipers.

Many Organisations, both within and outside the religious sphere have dedicated themselves, or at least advocatef for non violence.

The red cross is a prime example. Google humanist Organisations and tell me what you find.

They are going throughout the earth gathering worshipers for their God

Who has still not been proven

through zealous preaching and industrious teaching of what their God said.

Ọmọ they have successfully former one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers globally and everyone can testify that this people have LOVE among themselves.

Even though i can't see their God with my eyes in a physical sense i can see Him through His fine WORKS!

OLAADEGBU:


There are only three possibilities from where the universe can come from and by way of elimination we will arrive at the scientific evidence of the origin of the universe which confirms the Bible.

(1). The universe created itself; or

I've never made this claim. It seems quite illogical for something to "create itself from nothing".. true nothing.

(2). The universe has always existed, or

While a case could be made for this, for the sake of keeping this discussion simple, I'll agree with you here.

(3). The universe was created.


3. The universe was created:

"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1 Simples.
.

You've not provided any proof. Even if i were to agree with you that the universe was caused my something, you've not shown that that something is indeed a singular thing, talkless of it being what you'll call a "god", before you talk about it being the specific "god" you're preaching.

ValeeLove:
a dictionary will have it's meaning, but my defination is it's a being not physical or natural.

Not physical or natural is not a concise definifion. You're basically describing what it's not, not what it is. Saying "not physical" tells us little to nothing about what it is actually supposed to be.

Spirits are also the source of existence of humankind.

How exactly did you also arrive at this conclusion?

How do I know they exist? One, science hasn't been able to truly explain how the universe was created and also what gives life, emotion and intellect to humans. The lack of tangible explanations to that effect to answer our primary and basest questions of life has led me to believe that there exists an invisible force backing our existence that science cannot detect.

Basically, what you're saying is "we don't yet know, therefore God". This is called the god of the gaps fallacy.

If we don't know something, it's okay to say we simply don't know. But to go a step further and claim that it was a "non-physical" thing called a god without providing any evidence for such just doesn't work.

Unfalsifiable claims and gaps in knowledge do not count as evidence for a god. I hope you can see my point.

There's also stories of ghosts and all that. But the main proof for me is my ability to commune with God anywhere, anytime.

I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to prove. We've had stories for as long as we've been able to talk as a species. Whether or not the stories are true is another topic of discussion.

Even if the stories are true, i fail to see how they prove anything other than the fact that we still understand very little about our universe.

I'll prove it. First of all, do you believe in Jesus?

What exactly do you mean by "believe in Jesus"?

ValeeLove:
so there's a problem right here because we know God is a spirit

How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion? What is a spirit and how do you know they exist?

and therefore His existence cannot be proven through physical means. The best I can do for you as per your request to knowing the creator is by pointing you to his creation. If you look at the creation of the creator you will see his excellency in science and art. The calculations and intelligence utilized in creating the said creation, or the beauty and design and how they convey emotions; if studied will prompt you to believe without a shadow of a doubt that all these if not created by God were at least made by someone or something of similar characteristics. You can't tell me these marvelous designs weren't crafted but just appeared as a result of a bang?

I've made no claims or assertions as to where things came from. If anything, it's one of the things I'm really curious about.

But if you claim it came from a god, or deity of some sort, then you're going to have to prove it in some way.

Creation says nothing specific about the creator. Creation attests to the fact that it was indeed created. It doesn't give us any detailed information on the nature of the supposed creator/creators

that's a different discussion on its own. For now, do you believe in God?

Simply put, No. I don't believe in a god, in the sense that I'm not convinced of the existence of such deity as you've described.

ValeeLove:
when you mean emperical, do you mean strictly scientific?

Scientific evidence would be the most tangible. If you have other types of evidence, feel free to share and we'll be glad to examine it.

ValeeLove:
this is better.
God (by my defination) is the name given to the deity that created the whole universe.

What gives you the impression that it was 1 deity, and not more?

OLAADEGBU.. you seem to have a huge thing for american politics. Especially right-wing affairs. I'm just noticing