@ Banom. I want to argue for the existence of God. Against u.  I'm serious.

My own God na remix. . .no be all this moi moi God wey these guys dey argue for. my own na Original remix!! 

banom:

I will not define what i don't know any thing about, rather i will accept yours if you define and defend every content of your definition,

deal if you agree with me above .

banom:

Uncle welcome, why not help Deap Sight out?

what is God,?
What is creation,?
What is creator ?
What is existence ?
What is supernatural ?

1. I will stick with Deepsight's primordial definition for God. . , God is the CREATOR of the universe and its contents.

2. The creation is the universe and it all its living "elements" from the minutest organisms to humans

3. Existence can be measured as state of being. Existence can either be proved by the 5 human organs or the objects/actions of the subject in question.
In this context the existence of God is proved by his creation, the universe.

4. Supernatural simply means anything outside the order of science or nature or human knowledge.

can u now proceed with Deepsight's argument . . . . .

Krayola:

@ Banom. I want to argue for the existence of God. Against u.  I'm serious.

My own God na remix. . .no be all this moi moi God wey these guys dey argue for. my own na Original remix!! 

My man,by now your paramount need should be to arrange the things you will be using for that trip that your name was listed alongside Ogaga and others,ok ?

going with enough Cigar ates and Igbo won't be a bad idea as you will not need to buy Lighter .

banom:

My man,by now your paramount need should be to arrange the things you will be using for that trip that your name was listed alongside Ogaga and others,ok ?

going with enough Cigar ates and Igbo won't be a bad idea as you will not need to buy Lighter .

hhahaha. I don pack all my luggage since last week. Na ur driver i dey wait for.

Listen to this music:

swing low, swing chariots! waiting for to carry you ,

Krayola:

haha.

My honest assessment is that most atheist are worried that someone is going to make an argument that they can not refute. i think this deadlock over definitions is unnecessary.

I think that works. . .

Abeg deep sight, no vex. if u're still interested i wont fight over words. . .unless absolutely necessary. But I won't let u force things down my throat. Beautiful wings and "order in the universe" and stuff like that won't do it unless u make really sound arguments, that do not appeal to "intuition" or some other spiritual shit that means nothing to me.

Abeg, better person, Krayola, what's up?

You see, the guy think say i get energy for small small game. I no get that kin time.

This is an apple. Define Apple. It is a fruit. Define fruit. Fruits are edible bulbous productions of trees. Define Trees. Trees are plants with firm stems that grow from the ground. Define ground. The ground is the surface of the earth. Define Earth. . .

Who in the hell is going to play such a stupid kindergarten game, when what one is interested in is something as advanced as the source of all existence?

As Prizm once asked: What serious discussion can be held, when the discussants deliberately pretend to not know the definitions of the most basic things, simply in order to frustrate the conversation. Imagine some one asking me to define "Existence." Of course it is a state of being as opposed to not being. That's the same way some one asked me to define 'nothingness." As though any serious person can claim not to have an idea as to the word "nothingness" and what it connotes.

Can any serious minded person claim not to know the meanings of these words:

banom:


What is creation,?
What is creator ?
What is existence ?
What is supernatural ?

This is what i hate: and i must admit i was very irritated about it, because i actually thought the dude was serious in the beginning.

No wahala, sha, i am always interested in discussing with you because u get serious mind.

For you, i will re-enter and present the Cosmological Argument as i see it.

haha. Nice one. Oya, let's go.


One more thing. . .no appeals to ignorance. YOu can't say because science, as yet, can not explain something, u'll insert God as the explanation. And if u're going to use any scientific evidence, u have to follow thru all the way. i.e. all parts of your argument must be scientifically valid, not just where it's convenient and suits your argument. I'll be watching like a hawk!! 

oya, sir, proceed. . .   

Here is the argument.

1. Definition: By God, we mean that the universe was created by an entity. That entity is what we refer as God. Godship is defined as being the First Cause, Prime Mover, and maker of all existence.

Argument

1. The Universe is not eternal in the past: the Big Bang shows that it began at a point.

2. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

3. The Universe is something, and it began to exist at a point.

4. The Universe therefore had a Cause. The Cause of all existence, is something that itself exists of itself (e.g: numbers or infinity) without requiring anything else to exist, since all that exists, are effects of an ultimate cause.

5. "Creator" is the equivalent of the term - "Causative Factor" - or "that which makes something happen". This seals the argument on creation, as the Cause = the Creator (Or "First Mover."

5. The Cause (Creator) of the universe could not bequeath features that it does not have itself. (This is obvious within sciences such as genetics).

6. Every feature inherent in the Universe (including Life, Intelligence, and Power AND EVERY OTHER FEATURE) is therefore also contained within the Cause (Creator).

7. Therefore, the Cause (Creator) of the Universe, is Living, Intelligent, Powerful. . . and every other thing, positive or negative, within the Universe.

8. . . . . . . . The composite Image is complete.

Please identify the illogical gaps, and i will address them.

I acknowledge that there may be still some clatifications to make.

Deep Sight:

  1. The Universe is not eternal in the past: the Big Bang shows that it began at a point.

at a point in time?

Deep Sight:

  2. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

You are applying the rules of our limited experience of the universe, to the entire universe. Given the size and scope of the universe, such a syllogism seems kinda gutsy to me.

Deep Sight:

  3. The Universe is something, and it began to exist at a point.

At some point in time?

I'm no scientist, but from the little that I think i know, the big bang does not show that the universe necessarily began to exist. It seems u are using out-dated scientific models.

Deep Sight:

  4. The Universe therefore had a Cause. The Cause of all existence, is something that itself exists of itself (e.g: numbers or infinity) without requiring anything else to exist, since all that exists, are effects of an ultimate cause.

The cause of ALL existence is by definition, IMO, non-existent. That ^^ makes no sense to me.

Deep Sight:

   5. "Creator" is the equivalent of the term - "Causative Factor" - or "that which makes something happen". This seals the argument on creation, as the Cause = the Creator (Or "First Mover."

How can u say the universe is all that exists, and then say it has an external cause that also exists? . .  are there two different "existences"?

Deep Sight:

  5. The Cause (Creator) of the universe could not bequeath features that it does not have itself. (This is obvious within sciences such as genetics).

So far this cause does not exist, talk less bequeath features to something that we know exists.

And again u are using the rules of our limited experience of the universe to set rules for the entire universe. Rather gutsy IMO

Deep Sight:

  6. Every feature inherent in the Universe (including Life, Intelligence, and Power AND EVERY OTHER FEATURE) is therefore also contained within the Cause (Creator).

So basically this is what u are saying? ---->This creator exists outside existence, must be ALL that exists outside existence (must have had no ingredients) because you say so i.e because it is the creator of the universe, it must have been all that existed outside of existence, and could not have used anything outside of itself because, as a matter of convenience/necessity for your argument, it is all that could exist outside existence,  U see how ridiculous this is starting to sound? do u?

Deep Sight:

  7. Therefore, the Cause (Creator) of the Universe, is Living, Intelligent, Powerful. . . and every other thing, positive or negative, within the Universe.

IMO u are just using "GOD" as a substitute for the yet unexplained.

The big bang has not been fully explained. . .there are still a lot of unanswered questions. prematurely putting God on the left hand side of the equation is IMO blasphemy against human intellectual potential.

I have responded as honestly as I can. I'm no science or philosophy expert, but I've tried to be as brief and clear as I can.

over to u 

Your responses are honest and good, though i think its like you have not grasped what i am trying to communicate, and that is my fault, not yours. I have just come back from the club with my scandalous-as-ever-girlfriend, and men, this is no time to respond. I will hit you in the morning.

Nice one Krayola. Appreciate your honesty and open-mindedness. Cheers.

Deep Sight:

Here is the argument.

1. Definition: By God, we mean that the universe was created by an entity. That entity is what we refer as God. Godship is defined as being the First Cause, Prime Mover, and maker of all existence.
[b]

This is the part of the whole debate that got me irritated , You are yet to define God and you have attributed the universe to him as the creator,

as i asked you before, cant some one be a God over something he did not create, ? and can't a person create something without being God a over,

What if the universe evolved from a non living thing ? does that non living thing qualify as God ?

Finally why did you have to modify the thread title when you saw your self on the loosing side ?

@ banom. His definition of "God" is "Creator". So God = Creator. If he can show that the universe was definitely created, out of nothing, by an entity, then he would have shown that God, as he defines it, exists. IMO.

-----------------------------------------

Although he would still have to explain why this creator is exempt from laws of cause and effect that he claims must be universal (what created the creator). The only reason he has given so far is that it is necessarily exempt (his argument needs it to be). But that does not make sense. An atheist can easily claim that the universe does not need a cause, since it isn't certain that it began to exist.

I also totally disagree that numbers exist on their own. . .IMO they are a creation of the human mind, and are a tool we created to help us to organize and explain our world. Numbers and the way we use and understand them have evolved. . . from tally numba to XXXVVVIIII to base ten to binary to whateva else those nerds have come up with. . . they are an abstraction, but they did not exist till we created and developed them to fit our needs. The world they help us to understand had existed. . .not the numbers, those are our invention. In my opinion, though. Just in my opinion. I could be wrong about this.

Krayola:

@ banom. His definition of "God" is "Creator". So God = Creator. If he can show that the universe was definitely created, out of nothing, by an entity, then he would have shown that God, as he defines it, exists. IMO.

-----------------------------------------

Although he would still have to explain why this creator is exempt from laws of cause and effect that he claims must be universal (what created the creator). The only reason he has given so far is that it is necessarily exempt (his argument needs it to be). But that does not make sense. An atheist can easily claim that the universe does not need a cause, since it isn't certain that it began to exist.

I also totally disagree that numbers exist on their own. . .IMO  they are a creation of the human mind, and are a tool we created to help us to organize and explain our world. Numbers and the way we use and understand them have evolved. . . from tally numba to XXXVVVIIII to base ten to binary to whateva else those nerds have come up with. . . they are an abstraction, but they did not exist till we created and developed them to fit our needs. The world they help us to understand had existed. . .not the numbers, those are our invention. In my opinion, though. Just in my opinion. I could be wrong about this.

This is the part of the issue Deap Sight the empirical Genius failed to recognize , Numbers and time and even words are all human creation, how unfit will it be when used in the context of the entire universe ,

Imagine the dude telling me that God is a supernatural entity that created all that was created,i then asked him to define Supernatural and he started running away.

Ooooh Deepsight again? Have we not dealt with this topic severally?

Deep Sight:

Here is the argument.

1. Definition: By God, we mean that the universe was created by an entity. That entity is what we refer as God. Godship is defined as being the First Cause, Prime Mover, and maker of all existence.

This IS A LIE. This isn't what you define as "god". You people know quite well scientists believe the universe as we know it was "caused to happen" i.e a causative factor for the sequence of events that led to this universe.

Whether its as a result of the metamorphosis of a previously existent body or not We DONT KNOW what exactly but you lot go on to define it as "God".

You know your definition of god goes beyond prime mover/first cause but you conviniently present a definition of God = first cause (that we all agree is plausible) to rail road us into accept the highlighted below

7. Therefore, the Cause (Creator) of the Universe, is Living, Intelligent, Powerful. . . and every other thing, positive or negative, within the Universe.

  8. . . . . . . . The composite Image is complete.

The above is your REAL definition of God and severally we've shown your definition to be mere assertions without basis.

Argument[/b]
  1. The Universe is not eternal in the past: the Big Bang shows that it began at a point.

  2. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

  3. The Universe is something, and it began to exist at a point.

  4. The Universe therefore had a Cause. The Cause of all existence, is something that itself exists of itself (e.g: numbers or infinity) without requiring anything else to exist, since all that exists, are effects of an ultimate cause.

   5. "Creator" is the equivalent of the term - "Causative Factor" - or "that which makes something happen". This seals the argument on creation, as the Cause = the Creator (Or "First Mover."

All what this shows is the universe had a cause and like I said, science tends to agree.

  5. The Cause (Creator) of the universe could not bequeath features that it does not have itself. (This is obvious within sciences such as genetics).
6. Every feature inherent in the Universe (including Life, Intelligence, and Power AND EVERY OTHER FEATURE) is therefore also contained within the Cause (Creator).

  7. Therefore, the Cause (Creator) of the Universe, is Living, Intelligent, Powerful. . . and every other thing, positive or negative, within the Universe.

  8. . . . . . . . The composite Image is complete.

Your whole definition rests on the highlighted.

As evident in genetics also I might have the genes for haemophilia which manifests in my kid in a later generation. Does that make me a haemophiliac?

I've got the genes for albinism which i pass on to my kid does that make me an albino?

For these traits above to be manifest in my offspring(creation) the right condition and combination of genes need to be present. So also the causative element for the universe may have the neccessary elements for life it doesn't necessarily mean its alive.

is this an ambush or what?

noetic15:

where are the other pathetic atheists? where is tudor and mazaje? . . . . . .I would like to see deepsight construct his argument.

I laugh in aramiac. . . .Neotic what is the problem?. . .

bawomolo:

is this an ambush or what?

Ask Deap Sight ooo, let him come and prove his empirical god .

banom:

This is the part of the whole debate that got me irritated , You are yet to define God and you have attributed the universe to him as the creator,

as i asked you before, cant some one be a God over something he did not create, ? and can't a person create something without being God a over,

What if the universe evolved from a non living thing ? does that non living thing qualify as God ?

Finally why did you have to modify the thread title when you saw your self on the loosing side ?

It seems to me that certain persons are yet to get past the definition stage. Banom in particular seems to be struggling with this. I should therefore exhaustively tackle this before proceeding.

Let's take an example - i state: "Ghosts do not exist." To make this statement, i would need to have beforehand an idea as to what the idea - "Ghosts" refers to. Otherwise i could not possibly state: "Ghosts do not exist." I need to know beforehand, that the word "Ghost" refers to a disembodied being, and then i can state: "I do not believe that disembodied beings can exist outside a physical body, and accordingly i do not believe that Ghosts exist."

Banom, you appear to be making the error of assuming that the mere definition of the word, amounts to a conclusion that the God i believe in, EXISTS AND is the Creator. This would be akin to assuming that defining the word "Ghost" as a disembodied being amounts to confirming that such beings exist. That is wrong.

The definition only sets out the Idea. We can then proceed to debate if that idea exists as conceived.

Banom, everybody seems to have gotten this except you, and you can see the others are going ahead to make more advanced arguments already, attacking the core cosmological dessertation. Normally i should be focusing on that, and not on a trivial refusal to grasp basic definitions, but i have bothered to write this, just to make you understand that the definition of God as Creator, is not a confirmation that God exists - it simply is a statement of the idea of what people have in mind when they use the word "God."

It is clear that for all people of the world, the word "God" evokes the idea of a "Creator" who made all things. We can now debate as to whether such a "CREATOR" exists or not.

I am, going forward, going to be addressing the core arguments only, and not your unfounded and mis-guided worries on definitions.

Krayola/ Tudor -

I will attempt to take your concerns at once.

Tudór:


You people know quite well scientists believe the universe as we know it was "caused to happen" i.e a causative factor for the sequence of events that led to this universe.

I am most grateful for the the above. Finally, we no longer need to quibble about causation. You accept that there was a causative factor, great!

Thus the task only is to describe that Causative factor, and see what key attributes can be ascribed to it.

Very good! Let's proceed.

Some direct and indisputable attributes that we can infer from the fact of "Causation" are -

   1. The Cause was immaterial - because if it brought all matter into existence, then logically it could not be matter itself.

   2. The Cause was powerful - because as someone rightly stated, "the big bang was the mother of all explosions." Thus the cause of such a bang must be very powerful indeed.

   3. The Cause was timeless - because to bring time into existence, it must stand outside time.

I am leaving it this simple for now so we can crystalize the issues and see what is relevant to a proper expatiation of the cosmological argument and what is not relevant.

I am sure that what is set out above is very simple, very clear and very lucid. I am also sure that it is rationaly incontestible.

To recap: We are agreed on a cause, and also on the three attributes above, which are rationally incontestible.

Ay Tudor, Ay Krayola?

Ay, Banom? _{(*still somewhere far behind struggling with definitions. . .*)}

@ deepsight.  Please deal with the issues I had with your earlier post. . .separately from Tudor's. I can't follow till those issues have been dealt with.

Krayola:

at a point in time?

You are applying the rules of our limited experience of the universe, to the entire universe. Given the size and scope of the universe, such a syllogism seems kinda gutsy to me.

At some point in time?

I'm no scientist, but from the little that I think i know, the big bang does not show that the universe necessarily began to exist. It seems u are using out-dated scientific models.

The cause of ALL existence is by definition, IMO, non-existent. That ^^ makes no sense to me.

How can u say the universe is all that exists, and then say it has an external cause that also exists? . .  are there two different "existences"?

So far this cause does not exist, talk less bequeath features to something that we know exists.

And again u are using the rules of our limited experience of the universe to set rules for the entire universe. Rather gutsy IMO

So basically this is what u are saying? ---->This creator exists outside existence, must be ALL that exists outside existence (must have had no ingredients) because you say so i.e because it is the creator of the universe, it must have been all that existed outside of existence, and could not have used anything outside of itself because, as a matter of convenience/necessity for your argument, it is all that could exist outside existence,  U see how ridiculous this is starting to sound? do u?

IMO u are just using "GOD" as a substitute for the yet unexplained.

The big bang has not been fully explained. . .there are still a lot of unanswered questions. prematurely putting God on the left hand side of the equation is IMO blasphemy against human intellectual potential.

I have responded as honestly as I can. I'm no science or philosophy expert, but I've tried to be as brief and clear as I can.

over to u 

Krayola:


Although he would still have to explain why this creator is exempt from laws of cause and effect that he claims must be universal (what created the creator). The only reason he has given so far is that it is necessarily exempt (his argument needs it to be). But that does not make sense. An atheist can easily claim that the universe does not need a cause, since it isn't certain that it began to exist.

I also totally disagree that numbers exist on their own. . .IMO they are a creation of the human mind, and are a tool we created to help us to organize and explain our world. Numbers and the way we use and understand them have evolved. . . from tally numba to XXXVVVIIII to base ten to binary to whateva else those nerds have come up with. . . they are an abstraction, but they did not exist till we created and developed them to fit our needs. The world they help us to understand had existed. . .not the numbers, those are our invention. In my opinion, though. Just in my opinion. I could be wrong about this.

Thank you.

Besides, I never agreed on a cause of existence. U said God created all that exists. But u seem to have changed this position between your last 1-2 posts. wsup with that?

Krayola:


I'm no scientist, but from the little that I think i know, the big bang does not show that the universe necessarily began to exist. It seems u are using out-dated scientific models.

IF THERE IS ONE THING that the Big Bang does prove, it is that the universe began to exist at the happening of the bang. This is so inherently obvious, i am mildly surprised that you have raised it. What is a bang, if not a happening at which something begins to expand. So i am certain you should accept that the universe began with the big bang.

Krayola:


I also totally disagree that numbers exist on their own. . .IMO  they are a creation of the human mind

Let me ask you one question. Humanity as you well know arrived on the Earth very very recently in cosmological terms. The earth has been around for billions of years prior to our arrival.

Would the fact that we were not around to count the earth change the fact that it was 1 (ONE) Earth, and not, for instance 2? Would that have changed the amount of stars in the milky way galaxy? Regardless of whether humans ever came around or not, there would still have remained a certain number of planets around the sun. Indeed, there would still be whatever number of galaxies in the universe - whether human arrived to articulate it or not. Therefore NO, Krayola, i hope you see now that numbers are not, and could never, be contingent on the human mind. We only ascribe names to already existing quantities - that much should be clear from the above analogies. What you are doing amounts to stating that since we named animals, then animals are a construct of the human mind only. No - there were already eight moons around Jupiter, before we came and had to express that number in our human words. Hope you are clear on this.

For the rest of the points you raised, i think the clearest and best approach is to address the issue of Causation. Tudor had already accepted that there must be a First Cause. And i would urge you to examine closely what you really mean by asserting that there is no cause.

If you absorb the fact i made clear here: that the Big Bang, if it proves nothing else, proves that the Universe BEGAN when that bang happened. Thus if it began, it necessarily follows that something somehow triggered that event. Can you really conceive anything finite that can begin to happen, without a trigger of one sort or the other. Please see if you can imagine even one such thing. I am certain you cannot.

Therefore, we must put aside all the other points, and you should rationally accept that the universe was caused. If you accept this, (which you rationally must be impelled to), then we are on course.

Deep Sight:

IF THERE IS ONE THING that the Big Bang does prove, it is that the universe began to exist at the happening of the bang.

The big bang proves no such thing. Time is not a straight line that runs from some starting point to some other point. Time is not separate from space. There isn't a space dimension and a time dimension, but a spacetime contninum, that is a function of gravitational pull. Time is not uniform across the universe. the further back u go the slower time becomes till u get to some point when it is infinitely curved. So, unlike u claim, time did not necessarily begin to exist. . .time and space are not separate entities, and I think u do not understand the physics that your argument depends on. U are still using newtonian physics in 2009 ? that shit is obsolete.

Deep Sight:

This is so inherently obvious, i am mildly surprised that you have raised it. What is a bang, if not a happening at which something begins to expand. So i am certain you should accept that the universe began with the big bang.

quit this stuff u're pulling. Several peole have raised this with u but u just dismiss it. The big bang, from what i know,  describes the expansion of spacetime continuum from a point. And not the beginning of space, or time, or the universe, or any such thing.

Deep Sight:

Let me ask you one question. Humanity as you well know arrived on the Earth very very recently in cosmological terms. The earth has been around for billions of years prior to our arrival.

Would the fact that we were not around to count the earth change the fact that it was 1 (ONE) Earth, and not, for instance 2? Would that have changed the amount of stars in the milky way galaxy? Regardless of whether humans ever came around or not, there would still have remained a certain number of planets around the sun. Indeed, there would still be whatever number of galaxies in the universe - whether human arrived to articulate it or not.

Numbers are like adjectives. . .they help us to describe stuff. They are not stuff. 1, 2, red, good, tall, honest. etc.

Numbers exist in our collective consciousness. They exist in the sense that they have real relevance to how we understand and describe our universe. As u know there is a point early in the big bang when all our mathematical theories breakdown. While some might want to prematurely claim that it is some supernatural realm beyond human comprehension. . For all we know we could just need to develop a new number system (like we did with computers and binary numbers), or new concepts we never needed before to help us understand such. Numbers are just but one ingenious thing humans have come up with. Who knows what abstractions we would have developed in the next 2000 years that will help us understand our universe.

Deep Sight:

Therefore NO, Krayola, i hope you see now that numbers are not, and could never, be contingent on the human mind. We only ascribe names to already existing quantities - that much should be clear from the above analogies. What you are doing amounts to stating that since we named animals, then animals are a construct of the human mind only. No - there were already eight moons around Jupiter, before we came and had to express that number in our human words. Hope you are clear on this.

Come on. . deep sight. Animals exist. . dog is the name we use to describe a certain creature. .  that isn't necessarily what the creature is. It is just a label that we use to make our lives easier. If no yellow objects existed, and there was no mind to think of yellow, would yellow mean anything?

Deep Sight:

For the rest of the points you raised, i think the clearest and best approach is to address the issue of Causation. Tudor had already accepted that there must be a First Cause. And i would urge you to examine closely what you really mean by asserting that there is no cause.

YOu said God created all that exists. If nothing existed, then God is non existent. You still have not cleared that up. How can a non- existent entity create all that exists?

Deep Sight:

If you absorb the fact i made clear here: that the Big Bang, if it proves nothing else, proves that the Universe BEGAN when that bang happened. Thus if it began, it necessarily follows that something somehow triggered that event. Can you really conceive anything finite that can begin to happen, without a trigger of one sort or the other. Please see if you can imagine even one such thing. I am certain you cannot.

The big bang shows that the universe expanded from some point in which the spacetime continuum was most likely infinitely curved. Not that it began to exist out of nothing.

Deep Sight:

Therefore, we must put aside all the other points, and you should rationally accept that the universe was caused. If you accept this, (which you rationally must be impelled to), then we are on course.

I wish u would just respond to the points i raised. Read about them, and come back with an informed post that actually deals with the issues i raised. And not the same stuff u've been responding with since this whole saga began. . .don't try to dismiss them as obski  .   Update your physics

^^^ Physics, physics, physics. . .

I see we are going to have to take it slow. . .

There are grave and fundamental gaps in what you have laid out, but i guess if you are genuinely open-minded, as you have said you are, we will address them as we go along.

Look, before i respond in toto to the issues you raised. . .

Please clear these up for me; it would help our further discourse, cos i see we are on wildly divergent wavelengths. . .

1. What do you think of the idea of a MULTIVERSE (other universes)

2. What do you think of the supposition that our universe is merely one within THE SAME INFINITE SPACE AND TIME of a Multiverse, much as galaxies within this universe are within the same space and time.

3. Would the color "Yellow" change its hue, if we named it "Black"?

4. Would you suggest to me that there was no determinate number of moons around Jupiter, until humans came along and ascribed a figure in their own language?

Deep Sight:


  1. What do you think of the idea of a MULTIVERSE (other universes)

It is possible. Like God is possible, and like the sex-crazed galaxy hopping spaghetti monster is possible.

Deep Sight:

  2. What do you think of the supposition that our universe is merely one within THE SAME INFINITE SPACE AND TIME of a Multiverse, much as galaxies within this universe are within the same space and time.

Time is not uniform across the universe, so I don't think much of that. At a different point in the universe one would experience time differently.

Deep Sight:

  3. Would the color "Yellow" change its hue, if we named it "Black"?

It would just be called black. . . but if there was nothing with such a hue, and no mind to think it up, would the "hue" exist?

Deep Sight:

  4. Would you suggest to me that there was no determinate number of moons around Jupiter, until humans came along and ascribed a figure in their own language?

There are moons around jupiter. how many moons there are matters to us, so we develop a way to enumerate them. The moons existed, not the numbers. We created the numbers to articulate the stuff around us etc etc. So, yes  . . .there could be certain number of moons around jupiter whether or not we were there to count it. We created a means to describe stuff. . . they do not exist independent of the human mind.

2 books, 5 cars, 8 monkeys, 9 moons. The numbers mean nothing by themselves. They would just be abstractions, which are products of the mind.

Deep sight, am cheering4 u.

This argument has dragged on for too long on Nairaland, the God did it argument has failed to many times already.

haha. this one wey we juss dey fire grammar on top each other

The most convincing God argument I've heard was from some Mike Dowd guy. I was pretty much sold on it. There is no creator in his argument. . .just an on-going creative process. As in creation is still taking place. And the force driving the process and everything contained in the universe is "God". It's pretty cool shit. But it's not really a religious argument. . .he just tried to disguise some other world-view in religious language. Weird, but pretty neat.

Deep Sight:

   1. The Cause was immaterial - because if it brought all matter into existence, then logically it could not be matter itself.

This is assuming NOTHING existed (including matter, energy e.t.c)before the formation of the known universe, right?

Err, how'd you know this?
Even science has found it difficult to explain the state before the bang but not to worry, prof deepsight has it all figured out. . .

   2. The Cause was powerful - because as someone rightly stated, "the big bang was the mother of all explosions." Thus the cause of such a bang must be very powerful indeed.

What kind of power are you talking about?
Is it having so much of the type of energy found in the universe or having magical powers?

   3. The Cause was timeless - because to bring time into existence, it must stand outside time.

I believe krayola has answered on you on this.

There are many shades or categories of being/existence ie to say, that when we talk of things existing, there are different senses in which to understand that. There are things which exist because they possess matter; they are physical objects. They have concrete bodies or parts and as such can be seen, touched or felt. This is the most intuitive and common understanding of what it means when one says that a thing exists for they are all around us. So for example, one can say that cars, trees, rocks, water, air, planets, stars exist. This is an understanding that comes from a naturalistic examination of our world.

But why should we say that existence is limited to just the physical things that can be empirically manipulated? Not too many people live their actual daily lives on the presupposition that the only valid things existing are those things which are physical particulars or that have material form. Take some time and think about this point. Indeed the very thing that sets human beings apart as higher-functioning creatures on this earth is the human capacity to understand, process and utilize concepts which are not readily apparent from simple sense data.

In addition to physical objects which we can see, touch/feel, smell, taste or hear we have other reliable understandings of what it means for something to exist. Consider the notion of “Space and Time”. These entities (space and time) are what physical objects are extended into; physical object (matter) obtrudes into space-time; space and time exist even though one cannot literally see, touch/feel, hear, smell or taste them. In other words, you cannot isolate or investigate space and time in some test-tube or laboratory. They are not physically instantiated particulars/objects. Some lower life forms may never rationally comprehend the existence of space or time but their ignorance of that fact does not imply that space and time therefore do not exist.

Also think of the “Equator” or “the center of gravity of the solar system”. The equator has an attribute like a certain length; one can cross the equator but the equator is clearly NOT a physical object even though it exists in time and space. The same goes for the center of gravity of the solar system which is a point moving about in space. It is not a physical/material object either. It is an abstract spatiotemporal object for theoretically the center of gravity of the solar system is a moving point in space that you can momentarily enclose in a tiny container before it passes right through the container as it moves about.

Furthermore, consider this expression “Pete went to a judo match”. This statement makes sense to you, doesn’t it? I assume it does. In other words, if I make another equivalent statement like “Mary went to a dance rehearsal”, someone listening to me will not frown and declare that the statement is meaningless. But if we use a strict naturalistic sense in interpreting what exists, in both sentences the only substances we can empirically isolate are “Pete” in the first sentence and “Mary” in the second sentence. Those two objects have physical form. The rest of the sentence would then have to be described as a meaningless combination of words which do not exist because they can’t be empirically isolated. Would we be rationally justified in taking that stance? The answer is "No". What then do we call “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal”? It would be very absurd, to suggest that “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal” is a property of Pete or Mary in those sentences above. These are simply events.

Events are that which can occur, have occurred or are occurring in a present active sense. They have their own legitimate ontological existence. So for example, let us say that a certain John brushed his teeth this morning. This is an event that has already taken place—which is to say that the event has already occurred or existed. That is quite different from the active and present existing event right now as you read my post on your screen. What if someone comes out then and declares flatly that the event of John “brushing his teeth” cannot exist because the entire event is not a physical object? What if he denies the existence of that event because it lies in the past and is thus no longer capable of being presently witnessed? That is about as absurd as saying that the event “Pete went to a judo match” does not exist or is unreal because from the statement all we can materially grasp at is the physical form of Pete. Once again, an event is another example of existence that is non-material.

Events may involve finite particulars or matter which can be empirically investigated but taken as a whole, events are conceptually non-material. This means that an event as a subject is not composed of or structurally made out of matter. Think about this for a moment. Think about how impossible it will be for any person who purports to be a higher-functioning human being to live his or her life as though all events in the past did not really exist because such a person is committed to the view that only concrete material objects exist; Or how absurd it will be for such a person to doubt the existence of past events because he or she was not around to empirically validate these events. Do you see how such skepticism could lead one to simply assert that the earth is just 4 minutes old but with all appearances of age simply built in? Why? This is because such skepticism over the existence of the non-material (like events) will commit the skeptic to a fundamental disbelief in the rational existence of any past events outside one’s own immediate empirically verifiable personal experience.

Nevertheless we have other philosophical (metaphysical) and equally valid understanding of what it means for something to exist. These would include things like properties (size, color, weight etc), relations (being taller than, being sweeter than, being faster than, being greater or less than, being equal to etc), numbers or number sets (the set of all integers from negative infinity through zero to positive infinity), logic, propositions or mathematical proofs/theorems which are not concrete but abstract. These things have abstract existence unlike the way physical objects have concrete existence. This means that because these things exist in abstract form you could not possibly test them by empirical methods—which is to say that you cannot touch, taste, see, smell or hear them. They exist independent of any physical observer. In other words, these things exist whether or not there are human beings around to apprehend this abstract realm. But of course we do apprehend this abstract realm; and I’ll put it to you that no sane and higher-functioning human being lives his or her life as though the abstract does not exist.

On the issue of numbers, one is correct in a sense when one says that numbers can be used to express some understanding of the physical world. But that naïve view does not invalidate the idea that numbers themselves exist. Otherwise they cannot be employed in any meaningful way by humans who purport to make rational and logical sense of the world. By some of the arguments here, numbers will cease to exist if the only things existing in the world were simple-celled micro-organisms incapable of apprehending the existence of numbers. That idea is simply absurd. Aggregates, a collection of units or sum totals of quantities (or Numbers) exist whether there are sentient or intelligent life forms around to count. It merely redounds to our credit as intelligent humans that we can apprehend a realm of numbers and as such can count things or represent numbers pictorially or visually with numerals.

Just think about this: Did the number 4 simply begin to exist the first time some first intelligent human existing some distant time in the past looked around and counted out 4 objects? As you can see the answer is clearly “No”. There are many other examples to illustrate the point. No one thought up or invented numbers. Numbers are not the product of our creative imaginations or abilities. The correct view is that humans are relatively more advanced life-forms who can comprehend the realm of numbers and as such can invent or think up a visual representation for numbers as numerals and apply them in their day-to-day life.

@prizm


A realm of numbers? what "realm" of numbers? Does language have a realm too? Do words have some kind of existence separate from the meanings we give them? I know  moons exist, does "moon" exist too, separate from the meaning we give to it? I'm not sure i understand what u're gettin at.

IMO, there is no "correct" view as u claim. . . these are issues that have been debated for centuries, and are still being debated. So when one wants to use a "realm" of numbers to support an argument for some kind of transcendent "mind", it cannot, in my opinion, pass for emperical evidence.