AllNaijaBlogger:



I understand you. Yes, some christians twist things to make christianity more "scientific".

However, belief in God is also logical.

Life comes from life. That much we know. That original life is God.

Now, you would ask "who gave God life".

The answer is simple. God is eternal. If we are to believe that existence in the future will be eternal (there will always be something, even a remnant of the universe in the future), we should also believe that there is an eternal being.

This is what I believe

johnydon22:
this deepsight is not even arguing or mustering any meaningful defence for the op, just attacking plaetton and trying to maneuver other people to his side.

This thread is seriously ruined, the guy steered the thread off from what it should be and pushed it into a word exchange back to back combat..

Its just a sandwich of ad hominems and unrelated words to the op. deepsight i think if you need an argument with plaetton (seems that you don't tho, just want to banter words) Just open a thread on the topic and invite him, we would all be delighted to seat and watch and sure enough call out anytime any of you tries using personal words.

from what i see here, its not an argument just some letting off irked feelings...

johnydon22:
this deepsight is not even arguing or mustering any meaningful defence for the op, just attacking plaetton and trying to maneuver other people to his side.

This thread is seriously ruined, the guy steered the thread off from what it should be and pushed it into a word exchange back to back combat..

Its just a sandwich of ad hominems and unrelated words to the op. deepsight i think if you need an argument with plaetton (seems that you don't tho, just want to banter words) Just open a thread on the topic and invite him, we would all be delighted to seat and watch and sure enough call out anytime any of you tries using personal words.

from what i see here, its not an argument just some letting off irked feelings...

DeepSight:




Honestly!

Human beings!

Hard questions indeed! Hard teacher indeed!
A man who cannot state what he claims is a contradiction. Some real hard teacher.

A man riveted with stark and glaring fear.
Some hard teacher indeed!

Well, the whole thread is there for anyone to read. . . . .
I just can't stop shaking my head at the pedantic emptiness of that which he imagines is "hard teaching" . . . . God and the Tooth Fairy, lol.

What an unschooled little boy.

Kay17:


Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality and form etc. In the case of the divine, it is said to be of an alternate reality. Hence by metaphysics, I didn't mean our reality but the ultimate reality.

My question, is how do you find this ultimate reality obvious when you do not have the senses nor the experience to capture it?

DeepSight:


Hit me up straight away.

cyrexx:
Hmmmm. Interesting.

Kay17:


Can you substantiate "God is eternal", because I can easily say the multiverse or the Universe is eternal.

AllNaijaBlogger:




Therein lies the difference between the atheist and the theist. You see the universe as eternal while I see God as separate from the universe and eternal.

Why is God eternal?

Think about it. The universe had to come from somewhere. Something predates it. But to avoid going into an infinite regress of predating the universe, we have to come to a point where there is something that nothing predates. That point is God.

DeepSight:


Thank you. Let me try to build on this a little, since the Atheists here will offer nothing sensible in return.

That above is fair enough logic which should be simple to see. However many may still have somewhat fair objections to it.

In simple terms what I prefer to say is that at all events -

~ Something exists

~ Something cannot come from nothing

~ For anything to exist therefore, something or the other always existed

~ Therefore something or the other must be self-existent

~ The choices would be between a self existent transcendent and a self existent universe

~ The universe does not have self existent properties/ In the past I have explained that self existent properties must of necessity include -

* Intangibility

* Immutability

* Eternal in the past

* Immanent properties of existence

~ The Universe is therefore not a self existent thing: indeed, by this test - no matter at all can be self existent

~ The logic thus presents us with an inescapable conclusion in favour of a self existent transcendent, intangible eternal element: which element is what God is so called.

Not the Tooth Fairy. And not Santa Claus - as some "hard teachers" helping us "push our intellects" here, would like to discuss - whilst accusing others of "Sunday School" level reasoning.

Now the 2nd premise above is something that a lot of atheists (and scientists - via quantum physics) have attempted to disprove - namely to show that indeed something may even pop out of absolute nothingness. Some have gone so far as to ascribe properties and quantities to nothingness, which is of course nonsense on a philosophical level of existentialist discourse, however they may pretend it to be otherwise in any other sense. All of these psuedo scientific attempts to rubbish the second premise above have squarely fallen flat and shown the discussants to be embarrassingly ignorant of their own sciences or even arguments.

There is nothing like nothingness anywhere in existence because nothingness refers to "no - thing" and as such cannot logically exist, much less be referred to as the source of anything beginning to exist.

The 5th and 6th premises above are also argued against but they stand firm. The 6th premise in particular is sometimes argued against in terms of the permanence of change, the multiverse theory, cyclical universes and the like. None of these may be wrong, but the persons who so discuss along that line always fail to grasp the simple reasoning behind the properties of a self existent thing which I listed following the 6th premise. I have discussed those properties at length on this forum. No self existent thing can be matter.

Anyhow, thank you for your thoughts above, and this is just to return to you a hint of where I believe the discussion should lie - - - and certainly not with tooth fairies.

IN PARTICULAR - the point on consciousness which the OP raised is a separate and most powerful point and you can then begin to slightly understand me when I say that Plaetton's kettle of grilled insects offered up as a meal in response to it is simply disgraceful and beyond disappointing.

Good morning.

plaetton:

@ AllNaijaBlogger
See.
There he goes again, creating his own alternate universe with mere words, his own words.

Jokes apart, this is the delusion he suffers : trying to interface his own personally created universe with the real one.
Our universe is real, with real observable characteristics. It is not mishmash of fancy words strung together by a self-confessed mad man.

AllNaijaBlogger:

AllNaijaBlogger:




Therein lies the difference between the atheist and the theist. You see the universe as eternal while I see God as separate from the universe and eternal.

Why is God eternal?

Think about it. The universe had to come from somewhere. Something predates it. But to avoid going into an infinite regress of predating the universe, we have to come to a point where there is something that nothing predates. That point is God.

MrAnony1:


1. Your reality (if it is indeed real) is part of the ultimate reality and not something other than it.

2. You are confusing ultimate reality with alternate reality, they don't mean the same thing.

3. Alternate realities like your dream reality and computer generated virtual realities are just as perceivable as your physical reality. So what makes you think that the ultimate reality/an alternate reality is necessarily beyond perception?

Kay17:


I do not actually think the Universe had always existed and will always be here forever. Because I cannot substantiate it and it can only be a floating assumption. But that aside.

The immediate cause of the Universe is a question of fact and can only be satisfied with empirical evidence. The infinite regress which is the cornerstone of your argument, is an example of stretching reason beyond its limits. And it can be used to achieve an absurd conclusion that the Universe or even our Solar System are eternal.

For example:

Assuming we cannot see beyond our solar system, your crowd (theists) could say the solar system requires a cause since it is not eternal, therefore due to infinite regress God is the immediate cause of the Solar System.

The use of Infinite Regress might give us a faint idea about an ultimate cause probably. Who knows. Again infinite regress undermines our assumptions on the question of Being. Is our idea of a non eternal Universe due to our empirical observations or philosophical conception of Being? If our idea of the Universe is a philosophical conception of Being, then we are suggesting that Being in itself is a temporary notion and that extends to God.

DeepSight:


Thank you. Let me try to build on this a little, since the Atheists here will offer nothing sensible in return.

That above is fair enough logic which should be simple to see. However many may still have somewhat fair objections to it.

In simple terms what I prefer to say is that at all events -

~ Something exists

~ Something cannot come from nothing

~ For anything to exist therefore, something or the other always existed

~ Therefore something or the other must be self-existent

~ The choices would be between a self existent transcendent and a self existent universe

~ The universe does not have self existent properties/ In the past I have explained that self existent properties must of necessity include -

* Intangibility

* Immutability

* Eternal in the past

* Immanent properties of existence

~ The Universe is therefore not a self existent thing: indeed, by this test - no matter at all can be self existent

~ The logic thus presents us with an inescapable conclusion in favour of a self existent transcendent, intangible eternal element: which element is what God is so called.

Now the 2nd premise above is something that a lot of atheists (and scientists - via quantum physics) have attempted to disprove - namely to show that indeed something may even pop out of absolute nothingness. Some have gone so far as to ascribe properties and quantities to nothingness, which is of course nonsense on a philosophical level of existentialist discourse, however they may pretend it to be otherwise in any other sense. All of these psuedo scientific attempts to rubbish the second premise above have squarely fallen flat and shown the discussants to be embarrassingly ignorant of their own sciences or even arguments.

The 5th and 6th premises above are also argued against but they stand firm. The 6th premise in particular is sometimes argued against in terms of the permanence of change, the multiverse theory, cyclical universes and the like. None of these may be wrong, but the persons who so discuss along that line always fail to grasp the simple reasoning behind the properties of a self existent thing which I listed following the 6th premise. I have discussed those properties at length on this forum. No self existent thing can be matter.

AllNaijaBlogger:



It all boils down to accepting or rejecting the assumption that there is something bigger than the universe.....and that something is a being.

Kay17:


Mr Deepsight,

If you could remember that since nothing could not have brought forth the Universe, then the Universe must have come forth from this Something -- God. Doesn't that contradict the unchanging quality of God?

Also, why is the Universe of a different even contradicting character from God. Why isn't the Universe transcendental as well.

plaetton:
quote author=AllNaijaBlogger post=34625411]


It all boils down to accepting or rejecting the assumption that there is something bigger than the universe.....and that something is a being.


Again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Accepting or rejecting any assumptions. Nothing wrong with holding a worldview. After all, we are all individual and seperate worldviews.

The problem is about the superimposition of one worldview over another without a universal benchmark of testing and evaluation.

The issue is how we evolve a reliable, universal, predictable and consistent Method of evaluating and updating our worldviews.

We have evolved and do have such a system. It is the scientific Method. It has proven itself over the last few centuries.

Anything that is beyond the reach of the scientific Method, beyond mathematical proof or extrapolation can only be deemed as purely conceptual abstracts at best or just speculation at the least. This is where the idea, concept of god lies.

Its funny that both Anony1 and Deepsight have both used the words "concept and conceptual" in their descriptions of god, without even being cognizant of the implications of those words and how it contradicts their arguments and worldview.

If God is an abstract concept, then what exactly are we arguing over?

Where are abstract concepts formulated?

Your guess is as good as mine?

They are arguing against themselves without even knowing it.

DeepSight:


You mean you have been busy writing irrelevant epistles without addressing that which you promised - even vowed to address?
Have you no sense of personal honour?

Just look at the many extensive posts you have out up today without even once addressing that which you were challenged to address: that which you in fact boasted about? ? ? ? ? ?

Chai.
Some people.

DeepSight:


Thank you for your comments.

May I ask exactly how such a thing would contradict the unchanging quality of God?

Would such a thing for example change God's eternity, self-existence, transcendence? Not at all sir - you can see that that does not follow. Indeed it does not follow anymore than you breathing in and breathing out changes the quality or nature of your being.

Let us stick with the analogy above to answer this question: it would be the same way a single breath from lungs is not of the same nature as the lungs itself. It would be the same way that single breath does not transcend either itself or the being that exudes it.

To use another analogy to help - it would be the same way Light from the Sun is not necessarily the fullness of the body of the sun itself. And in this same way, even if Light rays may move or be emitted away from the sun, this does not mean that the sun has changed in essential nature or substance. This is a mere analogy.

However, aside from the two analogies above, the simple answer to your question is that the universe is not known to be something outside of itself or beyond itself, and we thus cannot call it transcendental. The idea that something beyond the universe caused the universe informs our reference to that cause as transcendental.

plaetton:
^^^
The funny thing about these people, Deepsight, Anony1, Uyi, kingebukasblog, Ihedinobi2, Davidylsn, etc. In fact, every single one of them, is that when the chips are down, when they hit the brick wall of reason and scientific facts, the they reach into their pockets and INVOKE the FAITH AMENDMENT.

The Faith Amendment is a sort of get-out-of-jail card that theists of all shades carry in their pockets whenever the wall of reason and facts begin to close in on them.

The Faith Amendment protects the believer from Accepting or conceding to any or all truths and facts that might incriminate his/chosen set of beliefs.
The hilarious thing here is that all the people mentioned above, have , at one or several times in the paste, reached into their pockets to invoke the Faith Amendment.

Selective Amnesia.

Selective Amnesia allows them to choose what to remember and what to forget, what is to believe by faith and what to believe by facts, which scientific ideas to accept and which to reject, what is metaphycial and what is the toothfairy.

I find it amazing and quite hilarious that one person can scoff at the Toothfairy in one instance, and then wax metaphycial in another instance.
Cognitive dissonance?
Multiple personality Syndrome?
Or just plain hubris?

plaetton:

C'mon Depardo,
Can you not see that I am enjoying watching you sweat in anticipation of imminent emasculation?
Waiting to be chopped up piece by piece is already eating you up. Lol

I am A saddist in this very case.

And by the way, big lol to " kettle of insects".
You certainly need more humor in your word salad recipes.

But, literally and figuratively, a kettle of insects are more proteinacous, healthy and life - giving than stale wordsalads.

After all, John the Baptist lived exclusively on insects, locusts, not wordsalads.

Kay17:


But you said the quality of self-existence is due to the immutability and unchanging nature of God, therefore if God passes from one state to another, God is in a flux as a result and he can not be said to be self-existent. The emergence of the Universe as a piece of God is a flux. Breathing in and out is an example of change/motion (which technically could change who I am, from living to dead. But that aside)

I will try employing your analogy as an explanatory device. Light emanating from the Sun does not carry the Sun with it, but contains heat which it carries from the Sun, The heat is like a marker and an inheritance from the Sun. That is the kind of substance I'm talking about. Comparing the Universe to God, they are at opposing poles of reality like light and darkness.

You have turned the Universe into the reference point and lens through everything is defined. Transcendence ought not be defined in reference to the Universe, rather to itself.

DeepSight:

It is not said that God is passing from one state to another, but that God's emissions are.
The Universe is not here said to be a piece of God, but a consequence of God.
This is no more than your breath is a consequence of you - and not a piece of you. In reality it is just a consequence of your body and its connection to life, but no matter.
The analogy of the Yugas simply shows the universe to be perhaps a consequence of the contant "breath" (if you like) of God. This does not mean that the nature of God changes.
In this, please also bear in mind a very core argument I made here once:
Someone contended that since change is constant, then God must change, i.e - be mutable.
I responded stating that if the fact that change is constant never changes, then what do you say? Do you get that?
If something is eternally subject to change and change is its core nature - then its nature as something that always changes never changes. That nature is immutable.
Nevertheless that was a simple revert to show that argument as not thorough enough.
In simple terms, the beating of a heart does not thereby change the essential nature of a heart - especially if like God - the beating heart is taken to beat eternally.
Every beat would be a moment of change to its external environment without changing the core nature of the heart.
Is this clear to you?
And in all of this you must yet bear at the back of your mind that which I said about the universe not being a direct creation of God.
I see little to contradict in the above and it does not detract from that which I am saying.
No actually: I only make reference to it to discuss with the materialist. Everyone should know anyway, as Anony has said, that the nature of reality is metaphysical.
In truth, the entire universe and material world that you see is nothing but a sort of holographic projection - a temporary illusion into which we are projected and from which we are extracted at death.
That is the real truth, but I see that you are not ready to take the discussion that far, so let us continue for now where we are.
Besides, the word "transcendent" has a dictionary definition which should suffice for this purpose.

AllNaijaBlogger:






Think about it. The universe had to come from somewhere. Something predates it. But to avoid going into an infinite regress of predating the universe, we have to come to a point where there is something that nothing predates. [size=32pt]That point is God.[/size]