Hello Prizm,
It would do a lot of good if you were a bit more open and gave us the definition of what God is just like huxley asked you so we know what we are talking about.
Thomas aquinas arguments rely on the idea of a regress and the invoking of God to terminate it. Your premises make the entirely fallacious assumption that God himself is immune to this regress just like tudor pointed out. Your first argument says whatever begins to exist must have a cause, ironically your entire argument is about the EXISTence of God, so simply tell us why God is immune from being caused? Even if I allow you the very dubious luxury of just conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name because we need one there is no reason whatsoever to endow that terminator with human attributes such as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and even reading innermost thoughts.
Next time before you go copying your proofs do well to read through them and filter the things you do not understand, your analogy about triangles is very laughable and for someone who does "research" you should go look up simple geometry online, things are not just defined out of hunches, mathematics does not work like religion.
I mean what happened to the plain ole I do not know?

Prizm:

If you don’t know what God is, then I wonder what you are arguing for or against. First of all, go and familiarize yourself with the topic under discussion (God’s existence or nonexistence), familiarize yourself with the intelligent and deeply thought-out arguments for or against the topic and then make up your mind as to which one is the more plausible. I don’t have the time nor inclination to help you with that search for I’ll be encouraging some sort of intellectual laziness.

Now, I realize that what I have said so far may not sit well with you precisely because you probably already have some idea of what God is or is held up by theists to be. If you were truly and completely nescient of the idea then this last statement “All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn.  So should we believe in Sussicorn?” sticks out like a very sore thumb.

That statement shows me the mindset of some atheist who has chosen to trivialize the discussion. You’ll find out rapidly enough that I don’t bother myself replying any and every comment. So you might as well claim that the philosophical argument for God applies to “invisible pink unicorns”, “Celestial teapots” or “the flying spaghetti monster”. That is your own cup of tea. That is the sort of rabid militant New atheism that is anchored on silly ridicule and a dearth of critical reasoning which reminds one forcefully of rabid militant theism they supposedly reject. Whatever happened to the deep thinking atheist philosophers of old like Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russel etc? The fallacious sort of appeal to mockery or ridicule which passes for the New Atheist arguments are simply underwhelming.

Are you kidding me?
More plausible?
You must be joking if you sincerely expect a sane man like me to believe and put my faith in god based on ARGUMENTS or Theories that don't even prove the entity but just suggest that it might exist. Dude i say it again, i need EVIDENCE and not ARGUEMENTS.
I just wonder in the old days when men were archaic and primitive god appeared to men himself directing battles, speaking to people publicly, answering by fire and so on. Now tell me Mr primzy are these not undeniable evidence?. But as man progressed and became more rational we now resort to mere unsubstantiated philosophical arguments that are "more plausible"- what a laugh!

In this age of science and technology archaic philosophic arguments like these are useless.
Science can investigate and try to recreate these theories. Check the hydriad collider in europe trying to investigate the big bang.

Pastor AIO:

Ouch!!  And I thought I had a harsh rhetoric.  

But I had the feeling that Huxley would sooner or later walk into this. It's like he's headbutted the guy's fist with his nose.  

OK,  let me start with this one.  Yes, Pastor you are absolutely right - this is harsh rhetoric, a far cry from the philosophical search for truth. As it happens, I am not fazed by such rhetoric.

B.T.W, mixed metaphors are not very good form, as in the highlighted bit above.

Prizm:

If you don’t know what God is, then I wonder what you are arguing for or against.

Yes, I do not know what God is. If history is any thing to go by, there have been more than 10,000 gods venerated bu humans - and today there are probably no less than 1000 gods worldwide that still form part of the human pantheone of gods. So I (and all the other atheists) are justified in asking you to define your god. For all we know, you god might very well exist, but how can I tell it from the god of the muslims, hindus, eskimos, etc.

It is obvious that you have boned up on some philosophical arguments for the existence of some god(s), which is a very noble intellectual act and I highly commended you for that. In a similar vein, I would like to ask you to use you philosophical bent to justify why you think we could go about arguing for something when the very nature of that something is NOT is under dispute. So to summarise;


Given your strong philosophical inclination, can you provide some philosophical justification for arguing for or against an entity whose very nature is undefined.

huxley:

Yes, I do not know what God is.  If history is any thing to go by, there have been more than 10,000 gods venerated bu humans - and today there are probably no less than 1000 gods worldwide that still form part of the human pantheone of gods.  So I (and all the other atheists) are justified in asking you to define your god.  For all we know, you god might very well exist, but how can I tell it from the god of the muslims, hindus, eskimos, etc.

It is obvious that you have boned up on some philosophical arguments for the existence of some god(s), which is a very noble intellectual act and I highly commended you for that.  In a similar vein, I would like to ask you to use you philosophical bent to justify why you think we could go about arguing for something when the very nature of that something is NOT is under dispute.  So to summarise;


Given your strong philosophical inclination, can you provide some philosophical justification for arguing for or against an entity whose very nature is undefined.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

No one is forcing you to come and discuss or debate here. You came here on your own accord and you have your set of ideas or opinions on the subject. It means that if you want to participate in the discussion, you have to familiarize yourself with the topic. If you are not familiar with what the discussion is, then sit it out and let honest people discuss the issues. This is like watching people discussing a sufficiently complex topic like say "Wave-Particle Duality of Matter and Energy", then jumping in from left field to demand of the serious discussants a definition for matter or energy. I am not to be saddled with the task of helping you out on that score; so I have no need to "justify why you think we could go about arguing for something when the very nature of that something is NOT is under dispute."

Again, let me spell it out for you: You know what side of the discussion "theism(God) vs atheism(No God)" that mirrors your worldview, and you know the reasons why you favor that worldview. If you want to be part of any fruitful discussion here, start by making a positive claim for your side of the discussion. Yes, you can start out by making your own logical case which would be examined. You don't get to sit on some form of 'judgment panel" to arbitrate on what makes sense to your own strict naturalistic worldview.

If your contention is that you do not understand what is being discussed, then kindly sit it out.

Prizm:

I’ll make this brief also. Here are my observations:

1)You seem to be confusing the Cosmological Argument with the Design or Fine-tuning Argument. They are different lines of arguments. Like I suggested earlier, drop this hasty and lazy intellectual approach to this discussion, go and familiarize yourself with what these arguments really are.

O.K

2)If you had done so, you would not have come out to speculate that the explanation for the origin of the universe is some alien supercomputer. The concept “alien” (by which we mean [b]possible physical beings [/b]in the planets of this or distant galaxies) and

Oh i see, you're one of the arrogant types who feels is your perogative to define terms as you see fit.
Who gave you the impression the aliens are physical?
They could perhaps be on another frequency or plane ivisible to our eyes, can't they?

“supercomputer” (by which we mean a [b]powerful physical/material, spatially defined, and temporal computational device) [/b]are subsets of the universe. They are contingent entities and not necessary entities.

Again you conviniently make this flawed and narrow minded assertion because it suits your position.
The term "supercomputer" here is used as a concept and does not necessarily mean the physical, materialistic, spatialy defined,temporal computation device like we have here on earth.
Its just the same way you use the term God to describe the concept of a starting force.

Surely you don't expect me to invent an out of this world lingo to pass across this concept

3)How you choose to define atheism is your own problem and no sensible person is going to engage someone who insists on being shown an empirically provable God. If such an empirically provable thing exists, it will not qualify as God.

God appearing physically like he did to the isrealites would be empirical enough won't it?

To make this simpler for you to understand, the God concept is independent of the name God—once the concept satisfies the attributes of God, it shouldn’t matter if you choose to call it “The Big Primordial Shell”, “7X3O1R”, “Cosmic Singularity” or any other qualifiers that appeal to you.

Just as chris said, That this entity might exist

doesn't mean you ascribe to it attributes of forgiving sins, answering prayers, jealous etc- That is the concept of god as potrayed by religion and that is what i disbelieve.

4)You have not shown us, by way of logical proof or arguments, why we should agree with you that “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” does not exist. I may or may not agree with you when you present your case but don’t expect anyone to be convinced by your arbitrary decree to that effect. Show us how you have managed to prove, without reasonable doubt, that Jehovah does not exist.

I come to wonder how the christian god concept came into existence if not by arbitrary decree of deluded men.

Prizm:

I’ll make this brief also. Here are my observations:

1)You seem to be confusing the Cosmological Argument with the Design or Fine-tuning Argument. They are different lines of arguments. Like I suggested earlier, drop this hasty and lazy intellectual approach to this discussion, go and familiarize yourself with what these arguments really are.

O.K

2)If you had done so, you would not have come out to speculate that the explanation for the origin of the universe is some alien supercomputer. The concept “alien” (by which we mean [b]possible physical beings [/b]in the planets of this or distant galaxies) and

Oh i see, you're one of the arrogant types who feels is your perogative to define terms as you see fit.
Who gave you the impression the aliens are physical?
They could perhaps be on another frequency or plane ivisible to our eyes, can't they?

“supercomputer” (by which we mean a [b]powerful physical/material, spatially defined, and temporal computational device) [/b]are subsets of the universe. They are contingent entities and not necessary entities.

Again you conviniently make this flawed and narrow minded assertion because it suits your position.
The term "supercomputer" here is used as a concept and does not necessarily mean the physical, materialistic, spatialy defined,temporal computation device like we have here on earth.
Its just the same way you use the term God to describe the concept of a starting force.

Surely you don't expect me to invent an out of this world lingo to pass across this concept

3)How you choose to define atheism is your own problem and no sensible person is going to engage someone who insists on being shown an empirically provable God. If such an empirically provable thing exists, it will not qualify as God.

God appearing physically like he did to the isrealites would be empirical enough won't it?

To make this simpler for you to understand, the God concept is independent of the name God—once the concept satisfies the attributes of God, it shouldn’t matter if you choose to call it “The Big Primordial Shell”, “7X3O1R”, “Cosmic Singularity” or any other qualifiers that appeal to you.

Just as chris said, That this entity might exist

doesn't mean you ascribe to it attributes of forgiving sins, answering prayers, jealous etc- That is the concept of god as potrayed by religion and that is what i disbelieve.

4)You have not shown us, by way of logical proof or arguments, why we should agree with you that “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” does not exist. I may or may not agree with you when you present your case but don’t expect anyone to be convinced by your arbitrary decree to that effect. Show us how you have managed to prove, without reasonable doubt, that Jehovah does not exist.

I come to wonder how the christian god concept came into existence if not by arbitrary decree of deluded men.

Prizm:

I’ll make this brief also. Here are my observations:

1)You seem to be confusing the Cosmological Argument with the Design or Fine-tuning Argument. They are different lines of arguments. Like I suggested earlier, drop this hasty and lazy intellectual approach to this discussion, go and familiarize yourself with what these arguments really are.

O.K

2)If you had done so, you would not have come out to speculate that the explanation for the origin of the universe is some alien supercomputer. The concept “alien” (by which we mean [b]possible physical beings [/b]in the planets of this or distant galaxies) and

Oh i see, you're one of the arrogant types who feels is your perogative to define terms as you see fit.
Who gave you the impression the aliens are physical?
They could perhaps be on another frequency or plane ivisible to our eyes, can't they?

“supercomputer” (by which we mean a [b]powerful physical/material, spatially defined, and temporal computational device) [/b]are subsets of the universe. They are contingent entities and not necessary entities.

Again you conviniently make this flawed and narrow minded assertion because it suits your position.
The term "supercomputer" here is used as a concept and does not necessarily mean the physical, materialistic, spatialy defined,temporal computation device like we have here on earth.
Its just the same way you use the term God to describe the concept of a starting force.

Surely you don't expect me to invent an out of this world lingo to pass across this concept

3)How you choose to define atheism is your own problem and no sensible person is going to engage someone who insists on being shown an empirically provable God. If such an empirically provable thing exists, it will not qualify as God.

God appearing physically like he did to the isrealites would be empirical enough won't it?

To make this simpler for you to understand, the God concept is independent of the name God—once the concept satisfies the attributes of God, it shouldn’t matter if you choose to call it “The Big Primordial Shell”, “7X3O1R”, “Cosmic Singularity” or any other qualifiers that appeal to you.

Just as chris said, That this entity might exist

doesn't mean you ascribe to it attributes of forgiving sins, answering prayers, jealous etc- That is the concept of god as potrayed by religion and that is what i disbelieve.

4)You have not shown us, by way of logical proof or arguments, why we should agree with you that “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” does not exist. I may or may not agree with you when you present your case but don’t expect anyone to be convinced by your arbitrary decree to that effect. Show us how you have managed to prove, without reasonable doubt, that Jehovah does not exist.

I come to wonder how the christian god concept came into existence if not by arbitrary decree of deluded men.

created God?

Have you forgotten that God is primordial.  There is no such thing as before God.  God is the before, the beginning, the after, and the end. Even without a beginning or an end there is God.

Chrisbenogor:

Hello Prizm,
It would do a lot of good if you were a bit more open and gave us the definition of what God is just like huxley asked you so we know what we are talking about.
Thomas aquinas arguments rely on the idea of a regress and the invoking of God to terminate it. Your premises make the entirely fallacious assumption that God himself is immune to this regress just like tudor pointed out. Your first argument says whatever begins to exist must have a cause, ironically your entire argument is about the EXISTence of God, so simply tell us why God is immune from being caused? Even if I allow you the very dubious luxury of just conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name because we need one there is no reason whatsoever to endow that terminator with human attributes such as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and even reading innermost thoughts.
Next time before you go copying your proofs do well to read through them and filter the things you do not understand, your analogy about triangles is very laughable and for someone who does "research" you should go look up simple geometry online, things are not just defined out of hunches, mathematics does not work like religion.  
I mean what happened to the plain ole I do not know?

It is hard to make out what you are exactly arguing for here. The only thing I can simply say in reply is this:

"God does not BEGIN to exist" Take some time and digest this. Numbers for example do not BEGIN to exist. They exist whether or not there is a universe or not; they exist whether there are life-permitting universes elsewhere or a gallery of hypothetical or life-prohibiting universes; they exist whether there are human beings to conceptualize them or not.

What this clearly means is that to think that the Cosmological Argument invites an "infinite regress" is to have misunderstood the argument. Sure a regress is possible, but that regress cannot be infinite or there cannot be anything currently existing.

Prizm:

I don't know what you are talking about here.

No one is forcing you to come and discuss or debate here. You came here on your own accord and you have your set of ideas or opinions on the subject. It means that if you want to participate in the discussion, you have to familiarize yourself with the topic. If you are not familiar with what the discussion is, then sit it out and let honest people discuss the issues. This is like watching people discussing a sufficiently complex topic like say "Wave-Particle Duality of Matter and Energy", then jumping in from left field to demand of the serious discussants a definition for matter or energy. I am not to be saddled with the task of helping you out on that score; so I have no need to "justify why you think we could go about arguing for something when the very nature of that something is NOT is under dispute."

Again, let me spell it out for you: You know what side of the discussion "theism(God) vs atheism(No God)" that mirrors your worldview, and you know the reasons why you favor that worldview. If you want to be part of any fruitful discussion here, start by making a positive claim for your side of the discussion. Yes, you can start out by making your own logical case which would be examined. You don't get to sit on some form of 'judgment panel" to arbitrate on what makes sense to your own strict naturalistic worldview.

If your contention is that you do not understand what is being discussed, then kindly sit it out.

Hello Prizm,

Whether I am familiar with the topic or not is irrelevant.  I think there is a lot to be said for some originality in debates - I don't need to go read up on all what our predecessor have had to say on the subject to be considered a worthy opponent in a debate.  I want my own words and arguments to speak for themselves.  I would rather both of us evaluate the substance of our arguments rather than necessarily rely on what others have said.  Now, what is wrong with that approach?


The point I was making is the following:

Given that you have presented such arguments as the cosmological, ontological arguments, I assumed you have a strong inclination to argue from a strongly a priori philosophical position - something which I greatly commend.  That said, how would you justify arguing for/against something when the nature of that something is not been settle?


Note that I am not asking you to define that something here.  My question is rather a methodological one - in other words, what is the reasonableness in arguing at all when we do not know what we are arguing about?   If you think you know what it is, please tell us what it is!

Tudór:

O.KOh i see, you're one of the arrogant types who feels is your perogative to define terms as you see fit.
Who gave you the impression the aliens are physical?
They could perhaps be on another frequency or plane ivisible to our eyes, can't they?
Again you conviniently make this flawed and narrow minded assertion because it suits your position.
The term "supercomputer" here is used as a concept and does not necessarily mean the physical, materialistic, spatialy defined,temporal computation device like we have here on earth.
Its just the same way you use the term God to describe the concept of a starting force.

Surely you don't expect me to invent an out of this world lingo to pass across this conceptGod appearing physically like he did to the isrealites would be empirical enough won't it?
Just as chris said, That this entity might exist

doesn't mean you ascribe to it attributes of forgiving sins, answering prayers, jealous etc- That is the concept of god as potrayed by religion and that is what i disbelieve.I come to wonder how the christian god concept came into existence if not by arbitrary decree of deluded men.

There is really no reason to duplicate your posts.

My position is that your proposition that the God concept can be likened to a "alien supercomputer" is FACILE. It seems to me that you do not exactly know what it means for something to be considered "physical" in the case of your rejoinder about the alien comparison. Also, it just seems to me that you want to define a supercomputer away from its finite spatiality, finite materiality or even its transitory attribute.  If you want to imbue an "alien supercomputer" with extra-cosmological attributes so as to call it God, that's perfectly fine by me. Have it your way!

I come to wonder how the christian god concept came into existence if not by arbitrary decree of deluded men.

[quote\][/colour/]

It is not for you to know how God came into existence ,God is a far superior being than the homo sapien,in the same way a goat cannever understand how tudor came into existence that same way you cannever understand how God came into existence.

That a goat deas not understand how Tudor came into existence does not mean Tudor does not exist

Prizm:

It is hard to make out what you are exactly arguing for here. The only thing I can simply say in reply is this:

"God does not BEGIN to exist" Take some time and digest this. Numbers for example do not BEGIN to exist. They exist whether or not there is a universe or not; they exist whether there are life-permitting universes elsewhere or a gallery of hypothetical or life-prohibiting universes; they exist whether there are human beings to conceptualize them or not.

What this clearly means is that to think that the Cosmological Argument invites an "infinite regress" is to have misunderstood the argument. Sure a regress is possible, but that regress cannot be infinite or there cannot be anything currently existing.

I have been waiting for that kind of response, you see bro on paper it looks as though your arguments are sound but upon close scrutiny it just does not make sense even to a child. Read my lips ( or should I say fingers )
NUMBERS DO NOT EXIST!
Numbers are imaginary, and yes the argument does require an infinite regress that is why you can only understand it in your own twisted way because numbers are infinite so if that is your basis of your argument then your argument is wish washy and vaucous, NEXT PLEASE!

Prizm:

There is really no reason to duplicate your posts.

Sorry wasn't my fault, it must have been due to some software bug.

My position is that your proposition that the God concept can be likened to a "alien supercomputer" is FACILE.

Perhaps its facile to you because it flies in the face of your so called god concept.

It seems to me that you do not exactly know what it means for something to be considered "physical" in the case of your rejoinder about the alien comparison.

Yes i do know and once again insist that the aliens could be unphysical.

Also, it just seems to me that you want to define a supercomputer away from its finite spatiality, finite materiality or even its transitory attribute.

Again you'll conviniently pretend like you don't get my point. The term "supercomputer"  does not refer to the type of device found here on earth.

And seems like you don't understand the meaning of the word "simulation" when i say the universe might be a simulation in some "Alien" technology.

The so called intelligent design and cosmological argument are both valid for this theory.

 If you want to imbue an "alien supercomputer" with extra-cosmological attributes so as to call it God, that's perfectly fine by me. Have it your way!

Right, it's only you thats allowed to create an entity imbue it with extra-cosmological characteristics including human attributes like emotions, forgiving sins, listening and so on - i laugh in martian tongues!

chukwudi44:

I come to wonder how the christian god concept came into existence if not by arbitrary decree of deluded men.

[quote\][/colour/]

It is not for you to know how God came into existence ,[b]God is a far superior being than the homo sapien,[/b]in the same way a goat cannever understand how tudor came into existence that same way  you cannever understand how God came into existence.

That a goat deas not understand how Tudor came into existence does not mean Tudor does not exist

Like i said. . . .arbitrary decrees. . .*shakes head*

Prizm:

It is hard to make out what you are exactly arguing for here. The only thing I can simply say in reply is this:

"God does not BEGIN to exist" Take some time and digest this. Numbers for example do not BEGIN to exist. They exist whether or not there is a universe or not; they exist whether there are life-permitting universes elsewhere or a gallery of hypothetical or life-prohibiting universes; they exist whether there are human beings to conceptualize them or not.

What this clearly means is that to think that the Cosmological Argument invites an "infinite regress" is to have misunderstood the argument. Sure a regress is possible, but that regress cannot be infinite or there cannot be anything currently existing.

The disreputable Cosmological Argument, the workhorse of William Lane Craig, who calls it the Kalam Cosmological Argument. First off, this arguments suffers from a number of unjustified assertion:

1) Anything that begins to exist MUST have a cause.

2) God did NOT begin to exist.

Why are we supposed to accept these premises?

Where is chukwudi44, where are your other arguments?

huxley:

OK,  let me start with this one.  Yes, Pastor you are absolutely right - this is harsh rhetoric, a far cry from the philosophical search for truth. As it happens, I am not fazed by such rhetoric.

B.T.W, mixed metaphors are not very good form, as in the highlighted bit above.

Mixed metaphors?! I don't get. I employed only one metaphor. that of you headbutting his fist. (Sorry to distract from the main thrust of this thread but I do not take the accusation of mixing metaphors lightly. Years ago someone once accused me of this after I gave her the honour of reading my poetry and I didn't talk to her for months.)

Chrisbenogor:

I have been waiting for that kind of response, you see bro on paper it looks as though your arguments are sound but upon close scrutiny it just does not make sense even to a child. Read my lips ( or should I say fingers )
NUMBERS DO NOT EXIST!
Numbers are imaginary, and yes the argument does require an infinite regress that is why you can only understand it in your own twisted way because numbers are infinite so if that is your basis of your argument then your argument is wish washy and vaucous, NEXT PLEASE!

The Numbers thing is a kinda Pythagorean thing that has come down through Plato and his World of Ideas thing. I don't think you can dismiss the existence of numbers so readily. The issue is about as complicated as that for the Existence of God.

@Prizm
And just because I am still pissed at your arguments, after looking at it again,
First, it's obviously not an argument for God or any kind of creator.  It's just an argument for the universe only having some cause which you theists have twisted to fit your own dilemma . Proving that god is that cause would actually be much more difficult, which is why you have not. But wait in second thoughts you are actually very correct
Premise : God does not begin to exist
Conclusion: Since God never began to exist, God does not exist  

@pastor
How body na?
This argument he has put forward surely has too many reverberations, we can pick and start trying to define beginning and beginning to exist, we can dabble into time space argument if God exits in it or not. The other day a pastor friend of mine asked me why I do not spice up my arguments with science and complicated philosophy and I told him that it is the only way you can reach the most people and make the most sense is to keep arguments simple and to a realm where all can relate to it which is the physical realm, outside this really we can only speculate.
So plato and all them other philosophers can speculate and twist words as much as they want but I am sure when it comes down to performing an empirical experiment to ascertain the existence of 1 there would be loads of stumbling blocks.
Cheers.

Chrisbenogor:

@Prizm
And just because I am still pissed at your arguments, after looking at it again,
First, it's obviously not an argument for God or any kind of creator.  It's just an argument for the universe only having some cause which you theists have twisted to fit your own dilemma . Proving that god is that cause would actually be much more difficult, which is why you have not. But wait in second thoughts you are actually very correct
Premise : God does not begin to exist
Conclusion: Since God never began to exist, God does not exist  

Yes, the Cosmological Argument is, at best, an argument for deism, NOT for theism.  To go from a cosmic designer to a personal god is a huge leap.  The only way this gap could be bridged is by marshalling other arguments. So in essense the theists have to put together a collection of arguments which singly are not as powerful, but collectively they [b]claim [/b]to be strong.

Surprise, surprise.  This is exactly the same way that atheist argue against all the gods - no single argument is a knock-down argument, but collectively the arguments against gods makes it less probable for such beings to exist.

What do you think of this argument from here:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-137750.64.html#msg2364238

The very essence of consciousness is the awareness of consciousness. Consciousness of Consciousness IS consciousness and there is no other Consciousness but the Consciousness of Consciousness. It is the ultimate self referential thing.

Now what about the Set of All Sets? If a set is an object and you collect all the sets in the world and put them in a set, how many sets will be contained therein. Well, the Set of all sets must contain itself for it is itself a set. This is a self referential/ self containing event. To try to figure how many sets are contained will only end in Paradox. If you stick the set of all sets in a set along with every other set that exists it is still not complete because you have yet to include the set. and so the process goes ad infinitum. The human brain cannot go there.

So it is with consciousness. It is also a self referential event in essence. Perception percieving itself.

This same paradox is where anti-creationists falter when they consider the creator. They end up asking, 'but who created the creator?' and dash their brains to pieces against the rocks of Infinite regress. Since we are so accustomed to things being created by some other thing the idea of Self creation boggles the brain. Who created God? God created God. But what was God before he created God? He was God.

Yes a single entity can be a function of itself and it is paradox to the human brain but it is not Unrealistic. The human brain has limitations. Consciousness is Consciousness of Consciousness. What is consciousness conscious of? Answer: Consciousness. If you find it hard to understand an observation that is not of one thing unto another that is a limitation of your human brain.

Chrisbenogor:

@pastor
How body na?
This argument he has put forward surely has too many reverberations, we can pick and start trying to define beginning and beginning to exist, we can dabble into time space argument if God exits in it or not. The other day a pastor friend of mine asked me why I do not spice up my arguments with science and complicated philosophy and I told him that it is the only way you can reach the most people and make the most sense is to keep arguments simple and to a realm where all can relate to it which is the physical realm, outside this really we can only speculate.
So plato and all them other philosophers can speculate and twist words as much as they want but I am sure when it comes down to performing an empirical experiment to ascertain the existence of 1 there would be loads of stumbling blocks.
Cheers.

are you sure that your pastor friend was trying to help you improve your arguments or where his suggestions kinda like a trojan horse?

That is the first question. Second question: So are you now proselytizing with your atheism that you think about keeping your arguments accessible?

Body dey inside cloth jare, thank you. How you dey, you sef? Hope say everything dey in working order.

Chrisbenogor:

Where is chukwudi44, where are your other arguments?

My argument is based on the theory of superoirity .As the specie Homo Sapien is far superior to the goat (physically,intellectually and spiritually)so is God superior to Homo sapiens.

I know that goats loking at the moving vehicles,computers and other technological works of Man might think these things just[b] evolved[/b] and were not designed by man.

No matter how a goat thinks He cannever understand how a computer was designed or how it operates,likewise the human mind cannever understand how God came into existence or how he created the world.

Simple put it Man canner understand How God operates,we were only created in his own image not in his own nature

chukwudi44:

My argument is based on the theory of superoirity .As the specie Homo Sapien is far superior to the goat (physically,intellectually and spiritually)so is God superior to Homo sapiens.

I know that goats loking at the moving vehicles,computers and other technological works of Man might think these things just[b] evolved[/b]  and were not designed by man.

No matter how a goat thinks He cannever understand how a computer was designed or how it operates[b],likewise the human mind cannever understand how God came into existence or how he created the world.

Simple put it Man canner understand How God operates,we were only created in his own image not in his own nature[/b]

How did you come to this conclusion?
Who told you this?
Have you listened to the explanation of the existence of god yourself and found out you cannot understand it?

Prizm,

Please explain to me the existence of NUMBERS, where can i interact with numbers  in the physical universe. Has any body ever seen, heard or felt a number.

Numbers just like God is convenient expression, used to explain some properties of the physical universe

hello,do u really want to interact with numbers?then go pick up your primary one reader for maths,and seriously dedicate your time in it,i swear one number will definitely jump out,don't try that,its psycho,

chukwudi44:

My argument is based on the theory of superoirity .As the specie Homo Sapien is far superior to the goat (physically,intellectually and spiritually)so is God superior to Homo sapiens.

I know that goats loking at the moving vehicles,computers and other technological works of Man might think these things just[b] evolved[/b]  and were not designed by man.

No matter how a goat thinks He cannever understand how a computer was designed or how it operates,likewise the human mind cannever understand how God came into existence or how he created the world.

Simple put it Man canner understand How God operates,we were only created in his own image not in his own nature

That is the main difference between creationists and evolutionists, while you creationists believe in superiority, evolutionists believe in equality. Homosapiens is not superior to anything, our evolutionary path lead us to having the largest brain( especially the neocortex), thereby giving us the highest intelligence.  Other species has other parts of their brains more developed than our own, dogs have a highly developed sense of smell, our own olfactory is primitive compared to that of a bloodhound. same with eagle and the eye.

Yes i acknowledge that a combination of our, highly developed brains, our opposing thumb and our efficient communication skill, make us have physical collective dominance over all other species, that does give us the right to feel superior.

This feeling of superiority is what is responsible for a lot of the conflicts we have in the world today, one set of people feels their Gods are superior  to all other Gods, making them superior to all other people. And all sorts of atrocities is committed in the guise of this superiority.

henrykent:

hello,do u really want to interact with numbers?then go pick up your primary one reader for maths,and seriously dedicate your time in it,i swear one number will definitely jump out,don't try that,its psycho,

CAn you tell us when numbers came into existence?    What you see in the textbooks are representation of numbers, NOT numbers in themselves.   Think about it this way - do numbers exist in a non-literate societies?  Did numbers exist 20000 years ago before the invention of writing?

In fact, the representation of numbers (as in 1, 2, 9, etc) is no different from the drawing of a unicorn. The fact that you can represent it graphically does not mean it exists in real life.

henrykent:

hello,do u really want to interact with numbers?then go pick up your primary one reader for maths,and seriously dedicate your time in it,i swear one number will definitely jump out,don't try that,its psycho,

hello henry, welcome to the battle zone of Nairaland.

So you that have consumed and digested primary one reader for maths, can you tell me what a number is or any number you have interacted with, please share the details of your experience.