budaatum:

........... all things are created by a creator of things. And since a creator of things is a thing in its on right, there must have been a creator of the creator of things. And if there was a creator of the creator things, there must have been a creator of the creator of the creator of things, and so on, at least, if it were true that all things are created by a creator of things. That's sense to me.

Maynman:

We know things can be created because we have seen things been created. I don’t know how the universe came to be, I shouldn’t use my human logic to qualify it.

budaatum:


I do agree, you shouldn't. Especially not qualify it for others. But that does not mean you can't or mustn't or shouldn't or don't use your human logic to qualify it for yourself. In fact, one should and must use one's human logic to qualify it for oneself, or at least attempt to.

Then there's here. After you've qualified for yourself, don't you create a thread to inform the universe of your qualifications, and don't we all wade in with our own qualifications?

We "shouldn't", perhaps, but that's all we do.

Maynman:

What if there are other concepts different from “create” “exist”?

budaatum:

No I have not seen "creation" without a "creator". But I have seen things that exist without a creator. And I repeat, a rock.

I see a rock exists, but I cannot honestly say I saw a creator creating rocks. And its process of formation does not include a creator. It would even be dishonest to call a rock a creation of a creator as rock formation does not require such an external agent to occur.

In effect, I have seen things in existence that have not been created by a creator. A rock.

budaatum:


There are other concepts different from “create” “exist”. In fact, is "create-exist a concept?

Not all things that exist are created. Some just are.

Maynman:

Since i was not there, i have no human logic to qualify it with, i can only make wild assumptions.
And what’s even the importance of knowing?

Yea, i create a thread because i know a thread can be created, I don’t know if a universe can be created, haven’t seen one yet.

budaatum:


Yet, we do make those wild assumptions. And we make those wild assumptions having spent time investigating because we assumed knowing was or is important.

The importance of knowing is so one is not easily fooled. One also benefits from practising the art of seeking, which is what results in knowing, and is a valuable transferable skill.

Maynman:

The investigation is still limited to our human understanding on this tiny earth. We may not even have the English words to describe what’s the universe and how it came to be.

When i said knowing, i meant knowing how the universe came to be, what’s the importance?

budaatum:


When you said knowing, you meant knowing how the universe came to be, which means, first know what the universe is. That's important. It's like asking, where do I stand. After all, in trying to know what the universe is, I must know the little tiny portion of it that I stand on.

As to words to describe it, one can learn how words have been used to describe it in the past and how those words have evolved into our own presence and use that knowledge to refine one's own description.

That said, it's not important for everyone. It's not air, after all.

Maynman:

Yeah of course, so who is the creator of earth that we stand on?

Maynman:
The only reason you think something can be created is because we humans create things, are you now using the same concept for this god?

Maynman:
And what’s a “universe”, is that word “universe” not our limited human understanding of the things we see. The definition may change later on.

Maynman:
But it’s still humans that are using those words in the past in our tiny earth with their human understanding, can such things use our human terminologies “create” “exist”?

What "such things, Mayn?

Below is you.

[quote author=Maynman post=120457177]
.....all these I don’t know and i reject any any opinion be it gods(atheism) without evidence and i stick to I Don’t Know until i see evidences.

Have you seen evidence for "such things"? I ask to point out the difficulty in communicating.

Point is, we create terminologies to communicate with our fellow human beings. It has method and rules which might not be known to "such beings", so we'd just need to learn each others language first, like when Europeans landed in West Africa. I'm not buying your "such things" though, not without evidence.

[quote author=Maynman post=120458969]We humans create thats why we have creator, Some animals create, If this thing is not human and not animal, we can’t use “create” for it, or say it has a creator, I don’t know what can create a universe or if universe can be created by a creator or there’s such a thing as a “creator” powerful enough to create anything that magnitude or the universe was even created to start with.

budaatum:

That's an odd question, considering the undisputed following:


I don't "use the same concept for this god"


The definition changes as humans understand more.

Like, 3000 years ago, some human understanding was "In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth", and those who wrote that described their understanding as we now read it, and since then others have come up with their own understandings for consideration too.

Change, you see, is constant. Its why and how we evolve. My understanding, note.

Maynman:

There was no human understanding that said “ 3000 years ago, some human understanding was "In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth".

They were talking about a particular Abrahamaic deity, in another human understanding in another culture, it was not a deity that created heaven and earth.

budaatum:


When "they were talking about a particular Abrahamaic deity" in their own human understanding in their own culture, of course other had talked or were talking about their own deity in their own human understanding in their own culture, and whatever their understanding is or was, none have presented acceptable evidence their deity created earth.

Even you here are talking about a particular deity (the universe) in your own culture and human understanding. Or put it this way. I am understanding what you are saying in your own culture and human understanding in my own culture and my own human understanding. It's why I'd say you treat the universe as a proxy for a deity, in this one instance. You don't. I just see it that way. And no. I'm not saying you worship the universe.

As for heaven. Evidence required for its existence first please before we discuss how it came into existence.

Maynman:

Workch, let’s all stick to I DONT KNOW and reject any explanation given to us by scientists and Theists, because everyone is ignorant of it, any idea propose can never be right, because this thing is unknownable.

Maynman:
For you to say you don’t know if a god exist or not, you’ve already ascertain that a god can exist.

budaatum:


I've brought this here to drag it away from your more active thread so as not to detail it.

I do not agree with the "let’s all stick to I DONT KNOW", (on the assumption it is meant as "no one knows", and not just you claiming to not know, if which I misunderstand, what follows is irrelevant).

If one has not done the work to know, then indeed one should say one does not know, but a general categorical "no one knows" (my assumption of the meaning and intent of your "I DONT KNOW", with apologies if wrong), is just not true since some know because they have bothered to do the work in order to know and therefore do know.

Also, it is not very wise to "reject any explanation given to us by scientists and Theists", unless by "accept" you mean uncritically accept and believe it.

And this thing is not unknownable.

First, it is very possible to know what is already known, since many express what they know in writings which can be read or accessed in other ways to therefore know what they know. The knowledge (what is claimed to be known) about gods go back to very early writing and from many cultures, so one must consider such "explanations". You yourself have explained your knowing here for consideration and thereby increased the knowledge of those who read it either we agree or not.

Second, scientists and sometimes, theists, do quite a lot of research, often more than a layperson may do, so their explanation (opinion) is worth consideration. And that's apart from learning how their explanations have changed or been abandoned or evolved over time, which will increase one's own knowing and understanding, not only of the explanation but also of the explainer and what they explain.

Third, one can compare and contrast the various explanations to see where they agree or disagree or express the same idea different or same and compare to one's own understanding and knowing, which will increase one's own understanding and knowledge. It's a lot of work, I admit, but it's not impossible to do the work in order to know.

Not doing the work and claiming not to know, is true, in some sense, but those who make such claims of not knowing and then go on to explain their opinions of knowledge, are presenting a fallacy of untruths that they have already ascertained for themselves, just as you explained.

A001:
Useless argument. Keep wasting away your youth creating threads upon threads and posts and posts arguing about God's existence or inexistence.

I only engage smart people, not dumb persons that don't know basic science.

A001:
Useless argument. Keep wasting away your youth creating threads upon threads and posts and upon posts arguing about God's existence or inexistence.

No go find work.

I only engage smart people, not dumb persons that don't know basic science.

jaephoenix:

Is that it? Oh, I'm disappointed to say the least

jaephoenix:
Where's Workch and A001 when you need 'em?

A001:

Who cares? Yesterday, the dimwit called agnostics monotheists. Today, it's agnostic theists.

Yet, he can't back his claim with my post that says God can exist or only one one God exists. I'm sure tomorrow, he will use another term he doesn't know its meaning to describe agnostics.

I don't have the luxury of time to be engaging a foolish poster that calls himself an atheist yet bears "divine light". It's plain stupidity.

Workch:
lol, I cannot engage this guy o.

Someone that will repeatedly be typing irrelevant things

jaephoenix:

Just a sec… can you describe how god exists?

A001:

Who cares? Yesterday, the dimwit called agnostics monotheists. Today, it's agnostic theists.

Yet, he can't back his claim with my post that says God can exist or only one one God exists. I'm sure tomorrow, he will use another term he doesn't know its meaning to describe agnostics.

I don't have the luxury of time to be engaging a foolish poster that calls himself an atheist yet bears "divine light". It's plain stupidity.

A001:

Ask Google. Direct your question to believers in god.

A001:
Keep quoting me. When you're tired, you'll stop. Or you don't even need to stop.

A fool that spends 24 hours on Nairaland posting senseless comments.

A001:
Continue crying in my mention. You no even kuku life offline.