DeepSight:


Its really odd that you would not deny that a computer requires a creator, but you insist that the human brain - a zillion times the super-computer that any man made computer can ever be: requires none.

Its really funny how you can smugly claim to be rational while making such irrational claims.

But enjoy yourself. On the inexorable day when you step out of your body at death, you will know much better.

it is more odd that computer requires creator, human brain - a zillion time the super computer require a creator but God a zillion time the human brain do not need a creator!! ,

"Its really funny how you can smugly claim to be rational while making such irrational claims."

Its really funny how you can smugly claim to be irrational while making such rational claims.

UyiIredia:

Go back to my initial response and educate yourself on the context.

I don't have to. My response to it was a sufficient rebuttal.

Good then. Explain the process by which chemical reactions in the neurons of the brain result in consciousness. Keep in mind principles governing chemistry. I'm waiting.

Add this to the list of the countless other things I am ignorant about. I'm not versed in neurochemistry and other cognitive sciences.

My statement doesn't deny that certain physical configurations have mental properties. My statement was that matter in itself (or in its most basic form eg atoms, elements and even compounds) lacks mental properties: this is why when wiegraf countered that I'm a matter with mind, I didn't deny it but asked him whether molecules in the brain could be said to be conscious. Now that I have further clarified myself I hope you won't continue in this display of idiocy.

I never said matter in all its forms does not have mental properties. That's a strawman. Obviously you did not comprehend my argument.

I don't think your earlier claim conveyed the emboldened information in the bracket above. I believe what you said was:

UyiIredia:

Mind is greater than matter. Matter in itself absolutely lacks mental properties...

If there was any hint that by "matter in itself", you meant "(matter) in its most basic form", Wiegraf and I would have entirely agreed with you; and would never have had a reason to point out that you are matter with mental properties. By your clarification though, it is evident we are all in agreement of the following:

1) While the brain is matter, it isn't matter "in its most most basic form".
2) Matter in its most basic form doesn't, as far as we know, possess mental properties.
3) Matter can, and does posses mental properties in certain complex configurations.

I hope from the foregoing points of agreement, we can naturally conclude that it makes no sense to declare that mind > matter.

Quick correction: Your notion of matter in its most basic form (i.e. atoms (elements) and compounds) is incorrect. The basic forms of matter, as far as we know, are dirac fermions and nucleons. Please take note.

UyiIredia:

Let's see if you've learnt anything.

Thanks for calling yourself the idiot. I gave a reason as to why self-existence is needful. You simply assert it's dubious with no reason whatsoever. Not unexpected.

You're welcome! Invoking a self-existent first cause lacks merit, either as an axiom or a logical deduction. An intrinsically random fluctuation may very well have been the first cause, and there is no requirement for it to be self-existing. So, yes, I assert your claim is dubious because it is just an assumption which you desperately require in order to prevent your deistic philosophy from crumbling under the weight of logic. You may have left theism, but you still cling on to some of the more unfortunate characteristics of many theists.

For the meaning of God go check your dictionary. That said, to the extent you didn't specify a process or reaction, those were black boxes. But then you have said you are (probably) an idiotic communicator. Thanks for the heads up. I would say it's more accurate in this case that you are an idiotic reader.

You do have a fetish for veering off on tangents! My examples were to demonstrate how nebulous "god" really is. If you found their vagueness irritating, welcome to my world! That's exactly what I feel when you say things like "god is the first cause".

I've checked the meaning of god in my (OED) dictionary, so which of the following is the definition that resonates with you?

a) (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

b) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity

c) An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god

d) Used as a conventional personification of fate

e) Greatly admired or influential person.

f) A thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god

g) the gods (informal) The gallery in a theatre

Your rebuttal only applies to things with form that are permanent. Since God is immaterial, God is formless. But then again an idiot won't know that.

Remind me, what's the point of this "immaterial/formless" god again?

I don't think I missed the point. Humor me though by stating the point.

The point was to show that just because matter is mutable doesn't mean the first cause must be immutable or self-existing. My particular example of vibrational energy was invoked to show that it is erroneous to create a false dichotomy between material and an abstract entity that happens to have the exact opposite properties as matter; as though matter is all there is to the physical universe. Assumptions are anything but logical deductions!

To the extent you did not bother to clarify yourself, or examine anything, going on with dim-witted mistatements I'd take this assertion as seriously a mad man's ramblings.

As is your right!

AgentOfAllah:
I don't have to. My response to it was a sufficient rebuttal.

No, it was not.

AgentOfAllah:

Add this to the list of the countless other things I am ignorant about. I'm not versed in neurochemistry and other cognitive sciences.

Okay.

AgentOfAllah:

I don't think your earlier claim conveyed the emboldened information in the bracket above. I believe what you said was:
If there was any hint that by "matter in itself", you meant "(matter) in its most basic form", Wiegraf and I would have entirely agreed with you; and would never have had a reason to point out that you are matter with mental properties. By your clarification though, it is evident we are all in agreement of the following

Your English comprehension must be rather poor if you don't understand that 'in itself' usually refers to the basic qualities of something.

AgentOfAllah:

1) While the brain is matter, it isn't matter "in its most most basic form".
2) Matter in its most basic form doesn't, as far as we know, possess mental properties.
3) Matter can, and does posses mental properties in certain complex configurations.

Correct.

AgentOfAllah:

I hope from the foregoing points of agreement, we can naturally conclude that it makes no sense to declare that mind > matter.

No. Explain how you came by that conclusion. Also refer to my explanation to wiegraf on why mind > matter.

AgentOfAllah:

Quick correction: Your notion of matter in its most basic form (i.e. atoms (elements) and compounds) is incorrect. The basic forms of matter, as far as we know, are dirac fermions and nucleons. Please take note.

The only thing incorrect was stating elements and compounds were basic forms of matter. They aren't. Atoms and sub-atomic particles are basic forms of matter.

AgentOfAllah:
You're welcome! Invoking a self-existent first cause lacks merit, either as an axiom or a logical deduction. An intrinsically random fluctuation may very well have been the first cause, and there is no requirement for it to be self-existing. So, yes, I assert your claim is dubious because it is just an assumption which you desperately require in order to prevent your deistic philosophy from crumbling under the weight of logic. You may have left theism, but you still cling on to some of the more unfortunate characteristics of many theists.

You are very stupid. If a random fluctuation is the first cause, then it has no preceding cause and so is self-existent. If random fluctuations has a cause then it can't be the first cause. Also, presenting random fluctuation as a cause of matter is absurd. What is fluctuating ?

AgentOfAllah:

You do have a fetish for veering off on tangents! My examples were to demonstrate how nebulous "god" really is. If you found their vagueness irritating, welcome to my world! That's exactly what I feel when you say things like "god is the first cause".

No. You were considering the set of things that God could mean using vague examples.

AgentOfAllah:

I've checked the meaning of god in my (OED) dictionary, so which of the following is the definition that resonates with you?

a) (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

b) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity

c) An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god

d) Used as a conventional personification of fate

e) Greatly admired or influential person.

f) A thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god

g) the gods (informal) The gallery in a theatre

Definition a suffices for me.

AgentOfAllah:

Remind me, what's the point of this "immaterial/formless" god again?

This is irrelevant to my point.

AgentOfAllah:

The point was to show that just because matter is mutable doesn't mean the first cause must be immutable or self-existing. My particular example of vibrational energy was invoked to show that it is erroneous to create a false dichotomy between material and an abstract entity that happens to have the exact opposite properties as matter; as though matter is all there is to the physical universe. Assumptions are anything but logical deductions!

Wrong. You stated that Deep Sight was trying to create a false dichotomy between matter and self-existence then brought the example of vibrational energy which you never showed was self-existent.

Furthermore, since vibrational energy is not abstract then you failed to show it is a false dichotomy.

AgentOfAllah:

As is your right!

Okay.

oluwaseyi000:


it is more odd that computer requires creator, human brain - a zillion time the super computer require a creator but God a zillion time the human brain do not need a creator!! ,

"Its really funny how you can smugly claim to be rational while making such irrational claims."

Its really funny how you can smugly claim to be irrational while making such rational claims.

Computers and human brains are material so they require material causes. God is self-existent and by definition is uncaused.

Let's take your logic further. Whoever would create God would be more complex than God and require a creator, and so would be the creator, and its creator. Obviously this cannot go on ad infinitum. Unless, you are an idiot, I do not need to explain to you why an infinite regress is illogical. This is why we say God is uncaused.

Furthermore, God being an immaterial mind his mind requires no material cause as there is no material basis for it.

benzics:

The video follows the premise in which deists and Theists determine god exists, "everything must have a creator", showing how stupid that premise is.. .

everything must not have a creator...

But clearly the universe had a beginning....

AgentOfAllah:
DeepSight, as admirable as your writing skill is, you're a terrible logician, and I'll demonstrate why as you read on:

I'll leave this here because it is the hypothesis which you seek to derive by logic.

Many thanks for your thoughtful queries, I honestly appreciate them and respond as follows.

Self-existence, much like "infinite time" and "infinite space", while clearly defined, isn't a logical statement. It is merely an assumption which you have compelled, with no basis whatsoever, to inhabit reality.

Pray tell: why do you say it is not a logical statement?

It is a most logical and even unavoidable reality that there must exist something or somethings which are self existent?

For if you have contemplated the issues carefully, you must recognize per force that the options are limited to either the existence of a self-existent universe or the existence of self existent Deity (I use the word Deity to describe a transcendental originating existent element). And the reason that this is the case is because if the universe is not self existent, then something caused it to be. If it is self existent, then nothing caused it to be and the matter rests there. However we know that the universe had a beginning and the laws of motion give us to know that where anything material begins to move, it must have been acted upon by an external force or trigger. This leaves us with the only other possibility which is the existence of a self-existent trigger external to the universe.

Remember that this cannot be avoided since we have already shown that "a permanent something" must exist since things exist. That "permanent something" is clearly not the universe as it had a beginning.

We are thus left to consider the existent of a self existent permanent trigger which is itself not the universe.

Note that this is still just a claim. God, in your statement, is an undefined equivalent of a black box system which could consist in/of any number of things. Indeed, there can be many necessary primordial self-existent factors on which all realit(ies/y) rest(s).

This takes nothing away from my argument. In fact I have often said that God being infinite cannot be limited to one thing. Therefore I have often described God as the sum of all self existent laws.

These factors may be mindless processes acting in parallel or may be a chain of uncontrollable/unpredictable reactions. Logic demands definitions, but none is given yet.

That is true, but takes nothing away from the description above of God as the infinite sum of all self existent laws.

You go on to outline your logical argument as follows:

The logical argument above is as technically accurate as proposing "some shape" as the answer to the question: "What is a square?" You've made an argument about "something", "somethings" and "nothing", which is vague, and then gone on to synonymise "something" with "god" without providing clarity on what god means (as I discussed earlier). The futility of such an approach quickly becomes apparent if I replace the word "god" with "jagojago".

Oh no: for this is not the case at all: the particular definition of God which we lay out is well known, and stretches across most or all worldviews as far as definitions go: it is not limited to any ethnic or religious composition of God - but sets out the basics of that which we theologically and philosophically hold: that God is the self existent, eternal, transcendental, intangible creator of all that exists. Each of these words is important as those are the qualities sought to be proven, and not whatever you call Jago Jago, or the religious constrictions of Allah, Yahweh, Olodumare, Zeus, Brahman and all such.

That definition being clear, the logic of the matter as expatiated above deals already with the question of self-existence. For anything at all to exist, something or the other must self-exist already: as there can be no "nothing". This is iron-cast logic already. We know that the universe does not self exist as it had a beginning. Thus the existence of a self existent element which is not the universe is proven. It logically follows that if it is not the universe and if it caused matter to be, it cannot itself be matter. Thus it is proven to be immaterial. Once it exists outside of the universe it is transcendental. Thus the key elements of the definition are proven as logical and it does not matter if you choose to name that element Oloriburuku. That is your business. But the existence of the element is logically clear.

Now to your specific points:

1) One wonders if your concept of "something" is a universal set of all the possible thing(s) that could be "god", including mindless parallel processes and unpredictable consequences of a mindful/mindless cause? This may seem trivial to you, but it isn't, because if "something" is a set group, I am forced to ask why you have bothered distinguishing between "something" and "somethings" in your first 3 sentences. And if it isn't, what informs its semantic singularity? Please clarify.

As I have said above, God is infinite. I have only used the different terms "something" and "somethings" to refer separately to that transcendental permanent self existent element (of infinite nature) which I refer to as God as opposed to all other things that exist as a result. I hope that is clear now.

2) Your points 4 and 5 do not logically follow from point 3. Processes can consume each other so that while a cause can be inferred, the initial process can never be retraced, rendering the initial process effectively "dead" (or impermanent). Chaos theory has well-formulated examples of this.

Even where processes consume each other this does nothing to obviate the principle of causality at play.

3) Point 7 isn't clear at all. Do you mean to say self-existing things are permanently immutable or that they cannot mutate of their own accord. Either ways, this point is baseless. In the former case, while we've never experienced any self-existing object(s), our knowledge of random fluctuations may hint to the possibility of mutations in our hypothetical self-existing object. Permanent existence isn't quite the same as permanent form, as any physicist would point out to you. And if you meant the latter, then there is always the possibility that they can mutate by interaction with other self-existing things. You haven't given a reason as to why two or more self-existing entities cannot co-exist.

A self existent thing cannot mutate. That belies the very nature of self-existence. Now understand carefully why: the laws of motion give us to know that that which begins to move requires a cause or trigger. Mutation is as such and requires a cause or trigger. A self existent thing is causeless and thus things that change logically cannot be self existent as well. A self existent thing will permanently be of the same nature.

Please when you speak of random fluctuations I hope you are not referring to virtual particles. I hope you also understand that the explanation I have just given in the paragraph above should show you why there can be no random mutations with a self existent thing. A self existent thing is immutable.

4) In point 8 and 9, you create a false dichotomy between matter and self-existing objects. Vibrational energy is not matter! Although, it is mutable; and can transform, given the right frequency and momentum, into matter and vice versa. It may or may not be permanent, but so far, nothing we know has ever caused it to annihilate. The jury is still out on this one!

Following from the explanation why self existent things are immutable, you should be able to understand why matter cannot be self existent. Because it is mutable.

5) Needless to say, point 10 is a faulty conclusion.
You say this as if cop outs and paradoxes are the only things that invalidate logic.

As you have seen, your logic is, borrowing from Tesla's expression, a beggar garbed in dazzling eloquence!

I hope you understand now, however I am still available if you have further queries.

MrMontella:

everything must not have a creator...

But clearly the universe had a beginning....

Right, but most theists actually use the "everything must have a creator" premise...

Yes the universe had a beginning doesn't necessarily mean it was "created"

UyiIredia:


Computers and human brains are material so they require material causes. God is self-existent and by definition is uncaused.

Let's take your logic further. Whoever would create God would be more complex than God and require a creator, and so would be the creator, and its creator. Obviously this cannot go on ad infinitum. Unless, you are an idiot, I do not need to explain to you why an infinite regress is illogical. This is why we say God is uncaused.

Furthermore, God being an immaterial mind his mind requires no material cause as there is no material basis for it.

Well I put it to you this way, "God" is a creation of your "logical assumptions", that doesn't mean god is a fact.. Stop talking about god as if it's a fact!

UyiIredia:

Your English comprehension must be rather poor if you don't understand that 'in itself' usually refers to the basic qualities of something.

I don't presume to have the best comprehension skills, but blaming the misunderstanding on my comprehension inadequacy is a shameless trivialisation of the meaning of matter. You may have had a clear picture in your mind when you mentioned "matter", but you're too arrogant to notice that you failed to convey that meaning in your writing; possibly because you lack a clear understanding of what that word means. Let me help you:

Matter is defined as anything that has rest mass and occupies space. As such anything, be it elementary or composite, that satisfies that definition qualifies as matter (as far as classical understanding goes). An electron is matter, as is a atom. A grain of sand is matter, an apple is matter, a human is matter and so on. Moreover, all these things are distinguishable because they have "basic qualities", which is why we bother to categorise them in the first place. Basically, the word "matter" is a supergroup which consists of many subgroups of objects that fit that definition. Therefore, when you say something like "Matter in itself absolutely lacks mental properties"; and you have not indicated what kind of matter you're referring to; you've by definition implied the whole supergroup in your statement! Anyone would therefore be right to counter such a bizarre claim with the simple fact that your brain is matter "in itself", and it possesses mental properties. In fact, its mental property is one of the "basic qualities" of the category of matter known as the brain. At any rate, if you agree that matter in some composite form can possess mental properties, of what relevance is your initial statement?

No. Explain how you came by that conclusion. Also refer to my explanation to wiegraf on why mind > matter.

How can you, in one stretch, agree that mind is a property of matter, then in another stretch claim that mind > matter? Mind is no more superior to matter than a banana peel is to banana. I assume the explanation you're referring me to is the one in which you posited that mind manipulates matter, which is just silly! Mind needs matter infinitely more than matter needs mind. Need I remind you that matter also manipulates mind!

The only thing incorrect was stating elements and compounds were basic forms of matter. They aren't. Atoms and sub-atomic particles are basic forms of matter.

I'd exercise caution when talking about matter if I were you, because it is not a trivial matter (see what I done there? )! Atoms cannot be basic forms of matter because they are composite structures. The only atom that can simultaneously be classified as a basic form of matter is H⁺ (otherwise known as ionised hydrogen or proton). Furthermore, not all subatomic "particles" can be called matter because they don't all occupy any physical space or even have a rest mass. As I said earlier on, Dirac fermions (Electrons to be specific. I hesitate to include all leptons for good reason) and nucleons (for the similarly good reason, I hesitate to include all baryons) are what constitute fundamental forms of matter. We can go into discussions about the Standard Model of particle physics, but it is neither helpful nor required to consider anything as matter in that field.

benzics:

Right, but most theists actually use the "everything must have a creator" premise...

That is wrong: the correct premise is that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause."

Self existent things do not begin to exist.

UyiIredia:

You are very stupid. If a random fluctuation is the first cause, then it has no preceding cause and so is self-existent. If random fluctuations has a cause then it can't be the first cause. Also, presenting random fluctuation as a cause of matter is absurd. What is fluctuating ?

I may have misunderstood the meaning of "self-existent". Does it connote existence in perpetuity? If something comes into existence, initiates a reaction and goes back out of existence, would that thing be self-existent?

Random fluctuations aren't absurd at all. An example of random fluctuations is in quantum fluctuations that occur in zero-point field. Here, any particle with a wavefunction, due to the intrinsic uncertainties of quantum systems, can spontaneously pop in and out of existence in vacuum. Vacuum, of course, is not "nothing", as it has an absolute minimum energy value. So, while an argument can be made for the self-existence of vacuum, a scenario is conceivable where it has no control over the spontaneous emergence of particles. The only requirement at any given time is that the net change in the field energy of the system = 0; and momentum is conserved. Note that this requirement does not preclude the possibility of localised maxima and minima of energy states that all cancel out when integrated over the whole system. Now, if such a spontaneous fluctuation does occur, from which matter is then created, it is evident that it was not "caused". Or maybe it can be said to have been caused by the random property of quantum systems (but this is mere semantics since the said property is fundamentally undefinable). The fact is that the first cause was, though uncaused (is this what is meant by "self-existent"?), not always existing (or this?). Also, it may even have transformed into something completely different from its initial state so that it is effectively "dead", thus cannot be said to be existing any longer.

Disclaimer: I do not claim that this is how the universe came about, I'm just presenting an alternative hypothesis whose core assumptions have the distinct advantage of being grounded in scientific observations.

No. You were considering the set of things that God could mean using vague examples.

God means nothing to me, so my examples were vague, yes, but that does not detract from the point I wished to make, which is that "God" is an obscure term.

Definition a suffices for me.

If your definition of "god" is: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Then there is no logical basis for the existence of such an entity for the following reasons:

1) No reason is provided as to why the creator is one, so this is an assumption, not a logical deduction.
2) No reason is provided as to why the creator is necessarily the "ruler of the universe", or indeed, why there must be a ruler for the universe.
3) No reason is provided as to why the creator is a moral being, or why it is the source of all moral authority
4) No reason is provided as to why the creator is even a sentient, let alone deliberate being.

This is irrelevant to my point.

It isn't, since you insist that an "immaterial/formless god" is the only possible source of existence.

Wrong. You stated that Deep Sight was trying to create a false dichotomy between matter and self-existence then brought the example of vibrational energy which you never showed was self-existent.

Yes, Deepsight set up his logical argument so that there are only two possible sources of existence; namely matter or a self-existent, immutable, immaterial entity. My goal was to show that this was a false dichotomy, since the universe is not only made up of matter. There are many physical phenomena in the universe that are immaterial which could be responsible for the existence of matter, and they don't have to be immutable. In fact, if there was a register of who is who in the universe, matter would not make the cut.

Furthermore, since vibrational energy is not abstract then you failed to show it is a false dichotomy.
Okay.

Makes no sense.

Just to address some snippets of your comments Sir - (However note my original revert to you above).

AgentOfAllah:
I may have misunderstood the meaning of "self-existent". Does it connote existence in perpetuity? If something comes into existence, initiates a reaction and goes back out of existence, would that thing be self-existent?

Yes it would appear you have terribly misunderstood the meaning of self existence.

Random fluctuations aren't absurd at all. An example of random fluctuations is in quantum fluctuations that occur in zero-point field. Here, any particle with a wavefunction, due to the intrinsic uncertainties of quantum systems, can spontaneously pop in and out of existence in vacuum. Vacuum, of course, is not "nothing", as it has an absolute minimum energy value. So, while an argument can be made for the self-existence of vacuum, a scenario is conceivable where it has no control over the spontaneous emergence of particles. The only requirement at any given time is that the net change in the field energy of the system = 0; and momentum is conserved. Note that this requirement does not preclude the possibility of localised maxima and minima of energy states that all cancel out when integrated over the whole system. Now, if such a spontaneous fluctuation does occur, from which matter is then created, it is evident that it was not "caused". Or maybe it can be said to have been caused by the random property of quantum systems (but this is mere semantics since the said property is fundamentally undefinable). The fact is that the first cause was, though uncaused (is this what is meant by "self-existent"?), not always existing (or this?). Also, it may even have transformed into something completely different from its initial state so that it is effectively "dead", thus cannot be said to be existing any longer.

This is a sorry load of contradictions: however I am pleased to note that you have taken the trouble to point out the fallacies and contradictions yourself, so no matter.

1. As you already pointed out, the so called vacuum is not "nothing". Examples of virtual particles in quantum vacuums as evidence of things being uncaused are already flawed as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere in the universe and these vacuums referred to in fact contain low gaseous pressure. Therefore from the get go: the "fluctuations" / "particles" referred to are not emerging from nothing and once they are not emerging from nothing, the argument cannot be made that they are uncaused: even where one doesn't understand the cause of the fluctuations.

2. As Iredia pointed out, in the case of fluctuations you ought to avert your mind the to the question - what is fluctuating?

Disclaimer: I do not claim that this is how the universe came about, I'm just presenting an alternative hypothesis whose core assumptions have the distinct advantage of scientific observations.

Your disclaimer is welcome but the idea of random fluctuations/ virtual particles in a quantum vacuum does nothing whatsoever to show things being uncaused or things emerging from nothingness.

Yes, Deepsight set up his logical argument so that there are only two possible sources of existence; namely matter or a self-existent, immutable, immaterial entity. My goal was to show that this was a false dichotomy, since the universe is not only made up of matter. There are many physical phenomena in the universe that are immaterial which could be responsible for the existence of matter, and they don't have to be immutable. In fact, if there was a register of who is who in the universe, matter would not make the cut.

Please go back and read my explanation on why self existent things are necessarily immutable and respond to that. And no, I did not limit the universe to matter, so please read carefully. Matter is permeated by the immaterial - however in referring to the universe in that context, I meant all that it is physically comprised of including its physical matter and physical energies. If all of these were caused by something else, that something else could not be physical itself. It would be non-physical: and this is what I sought to convey.

Please get this point very clear so that it is not a source of confusion in further discussion: when I refer to the material universe I refer to all its matter and physical energies as one continuing thing: When I refer to an immaterial element I do not refer to dark energy or other such elements within the universe. I refer to completely non physical transcendental elements beyond the universe and its material / physical nature.

AgentOfAllah:
I don't presume to have the best comprehension skills, but blaming the misunderstanding on my comprehension inadequacy is a shameless trivialisation of the meaning of matter. You may have had a clear picture in your mind when you mentioned "matter", but you're too arrogant to notice that you failed to convey that meaning in your writing; possibly because you lack a clear understanding of what that word means. Let me help you:

You show yet more idiocy. I don't have to clarify the meaning of every term I use especially when the term is popular.

AgentOfAllah:

Matter is defined as anything that has rest mass and occupies space. As such anything, be it elementary or composite, that satisfies that definition qualifies as matter (as far as classical understanding goes). An electron is matter, as is a atom. A grain of sand is matter, an apple is matter, a human is matter and so on. Moreover, all these things are distinguishable because they have "basic qualities", which is why we bother to categorise them in the first place. Basically, the word "matter" is a supergroup which consists of many subgroups of objects that fit that definition. Therefore, when you say something like "Matter in itself absolutely lacks mental properties"; and you have not indicated what kind of matter you're referring to; you've by definition implied the whole supergroup in your statement! Anyone would therefore be right to counter such a bizarre claim with the simple fact that your brain is matter "in itself", and it possesses mental properties. In fact, its mental property is one of the "basic qualities" of the category of matter known as the brain. At any rate, if you agree that matter in some composite form can possess mental properties, of what relevance is your initial statement?

More idiocy from you. Again I say confirm what the term 'in itself' means, namely, the basic qualities of a thing.

AgentOfAllah:

How can you, in one stretch, agree that mind is a property of matter, then in another stretch claim that mind > matter? Mind is no more superior to matter than a banana peel is to banana. I assume the explanation you're referring me to is the one in which you posited that mind manipulates matter, which is just silly! Mind needs matter infinitely more than matter needs mind. Need I remind you that matter also manipulates mind!

All matter was created by God, as such, matter needs mind.

AgentOfAllah:

I'd exercise caution when talking about matter if I were you, because it is not a trivial matter (see what I done there? )! Atoms cannot be basic forms of matter because they are composite structures. The only atom that can simultaneously be classified as a basic form of matter is H⁺ (otherwise known as ionised hydrogen or proton). Furthermore, not all subatomic "particles" can be called matter because they don't all occupy any physical space or even have a rest mass. As I said earlier on, Dirac fermions (Electrons to be specific. I hesitate to include all leptons for good reason) and nucleons (for the similarly good reason, I hesitate to include all baryons) are what constitute fundamental forms of matter. We can go into discussions about the Standard Model of particle physics, but it is neither helpful nor required to consider anything as matter in that field.

Yet more idiocy from you. Being composite doesn't prevent it from being basic. To the extent, most materials are composed of atoms it is basic. The idea that subatomic particles don't occupy any 'physical space' is idiotic. What does the particle exist in if not space ?

AgentOfAllah:
I may have misunderstood the meaning of "self-existent". Does it connote existence in perpetuity? If something comes into existence, initiates a reaction and goes back out of existence, would that thing be self-existent?

Stupidity on display. You even have problems grasping the notion of self-existence. Look at your question. Something that comes into existence by definition has a cause that made it come into existence, so it cannot be self-existent.

AgentOfAllah:

Random fluctuations aren't absurd at all. An example of random fluctuations is in quantum fluctuations that occur in zero-point field. Here, any particle with a wavefunction, due to the intrinsic uncertainties of quantum systems, can spontaneously pop in and out of existence in vacuum. Vacuum, of course, is not "nothing", as it has an absolute minimum energy value. So, while an argument can be made for the self-existence of vacuum, a scenario is conceivable where it has no control over the spontaneous emergence of particles. The only requirement at any given time is that the net change in the field energy of the system = 0; and momentum is conserved. Note that this requirement does not preclude the possibility of localised maxima and minima of energy states that all cancel out when integrated over the whole system. Now, if such a spontaneous fluctuation does occur, from which matter is then created, it is evident that it was not "caused". Or maybe it can be said to have been caused by the random property of quantum systems (but this
is mere semantics since the said property is fundamentally undefinable). The fact is that the first cause was, though uncaused (is this what is meant by "self-existent"?), not always existing (or this?). Also, it may even have transformed into something completely different from its initial state so that it is effectively "dead", thus cannot be said to be existing any longer.

How can you say a vacuum is NOT NOTHING and has an energy value, then say the matter created from it is uncaused?

AgentOfAllah:

Disclaimer: I do not claim that this is how the universe came about, I'm just presenting an alternative hypothesis whose core assumptions have the distinct advantage of being grounded in scientific observations.

Noted. Though if it is an unverified hypothesis it is silly to use it to falsify Deep Sight's point.

AgentOfAllah:

God means nothing to me, so my examples were vague, yes, but that does not detract from the point I wished to make, which is that "God" is an obscure term.

If you admit your examples were vague then my point on you using black boxes is shown correct.

AgentOfAllah:

If your definition of "god" is: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Then there is no logical basis for the existence of such an entity for the following reasons:

1) No reason is provided as to why the creator is one, so this is an assumption, not a logical deduction.

Any other Creator God would have to possess God's qualities which would lead to to a logical contradiction. One is an infinite regress of Gods. Two, a created God can't be omnipotent. Two Creator Gods would also not be omnitent since there would be a being they had no power over. Finally, a single God is parsimonious.

AgentOfAllah:

2) No reason is provided as to why the creator is necessarily the "ruler of the universe", or indeed, why there must be a ruler for the universe.

A ruler sets conditions that are obeyed. So if God set the conditions under which the universe operates when creating it he is the ruler of the universe.

On why there must be a ruler for the universe see here:
https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence

AgentOfAllah:

3) No reason is provided as to why the creator is a moral being, or why it is the source of all moral authority

An intelligent sentient being must be a moral being. To the extent God is the cause of the sentience and intelligence by which humans (or any other such being) make moral judgements He is the source of all moral authority. Note that unlike religious persons I won't claim God has specified which morals one must follow.

AgentOfAllah:

4) No reason is provided as to why the creator is even a sentient, let alone deliberate being.

See my earlier response on why there must be a ruler for the universe.

AgentOfAllah:

It isn't, since you insist that an "immaterial/formless god" is the only possible source of existence.

Then why ask me to remind you what God is again. Since your question failed to address the rebuttal I made it is irrelevant.

AgentOfAllah:

Yes, Deepsight set up his logical argument so that there are only two possible sources of existence; namely matter or a self-existent, immutable, immaterial entity. My goal was to show that this was a false dichotomy, since the universe is not only made up of matter. There are many physical phenomena in the universe that are immaterial which could be responsible for the existence of matter, and they don't have to be immutable. In fact, if there was a register of who is who in the universe, matter would not make the cut.

‘There are many physical phenomena in the universe that are immaterial’

The highlighted statements contradict.

AgentOfAllah:

Makes no sense.

Why?

benzics:

Simply put, I don't know!

How very convenient.

akintom:
No serious minded folk, sees religious beliefs as something to be taken seriously. It's mere illusion that soothes a child's brain.

Many are daily out growing religious idiocy. The apologists are particularly irritating, because of their addiction to the absurdities called god idea.

Though, one thing KingEbukasBlog has always made clear is that belief in God transcends religious beliefs, no be so? That's why materialist atheists CAN'T validly attack the deist position.

KingEbukasBlog:


Lmao ! What the heck is this ? I can construct an entirely different message with two different phones and claim an atheist posted it to me because it is utterly stupid to believe the universe came from nothing .

Religious skepticism has nothing to do with atheism . So try to deceive a gullible slowpoke with such nonsense not me .

The same way it is utterly stupid to believe the universe was created "out of thin air", out of pure nothingness, by sheer "MAGIC" ! Both positions are equally irrational and ridiculous.

KingEbukasBlog:


Science .

No, this is absurd. Science is empiricist and materialist. How does it prove the existence of an immaterial God? Care to explain

Richirich713:


No theist believes God came from nothing. That's just a usual strawman atheists use.

But you do believe that God created the universe from NOTHING, don't you?

KingEbukasBlog:


Atheism is a man made idea which started 2,500 years ago . It was founded on ignorance , rebellion , and hedonism . Go do your research

The history of an idea (i.e WHEN it started) has NOTHING to do with its validity. This kind of argument is disappointing.

KingEbukasBlog:



lmaooo ... you are quoting Lawrence Krauss whose book "A Universe from Nothing " was destroyed by a fellow atheist .Lawrence Krauss thought he had found answers but after the book review , it was discovered that he raised more questions than answers

www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING? The title alone is repulsive enough.

DeepSight:

Many thanks for your thoughtful queries, I honestly appreciate them and respond as follows.

Thanks for responding, and it would be remiss of me not to appreciate your dignified mannerism too! It's a breath of fresh bytes!

Pray tell: why do you say it is not a logical statement?

It is a most logical and even unavoidable reality that there must exist something or somethings which are self existent?

I withdraw my objection about self existence not being logical. It emanated from a poor understanding of what was meant by self-existent. It is logical.

For if you have contemplated the issues carefully, you must recognize per force that the options are limited to either the existence of a self-existent universe or the existence of self existent Deity (I use the word Deity to describe a transcendental originating existent element). And the reason that this is the case is because if the universe is not self existent, then something caused it to be. If it is self existent, then nothing caused it to be and the matter rests there. However we know that the universe had a beginning and the laws of motion give us to know that where anything material begins to move, it must have been acted upon by an external force or trigger. This leaves us with the only other possibility which is the existence of a self-existent trigger external to the universe.

Remember that this cannot be avoided since we have already shown that "a permanent something" must exist since things exist. That "permanent something" is clearly not the universe as it had a beginning.

We are thus left to consider the existent of a self existent permanent trigger which is itself not the universe.

insightful, but it is sullied by one fundamental flaw: Note that the way in which we determined that the universe began to exist comes from the observation that space itself, not matter in space, is accelerating at a constant rate. The theory goes thus: If space is expanding, and we assume at a constant rate (adjusted with some density parameters), then we can extrapolate to an epoch of pure energy, the beginning of space (S) and time (T) as we know it. Put in another way, S ~ 0, T ~ 0. At this point, everything, including the laws of motion, is in a degenerate state. So while you are entitled to apply such laws to the singularity, there is no real basis for such an assumption?

This takes nothing away from my argument. In fact I have often said that God being infinite cannot be limited to one thing. Therefore I have often described God as the sum of all self existent laws.

That is true, but takes nothing away from the description above of God as the infinite sum of all self existent laws.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification! But when you say "self-existent laws", do you mean to say the "laws" are abstract entities that can be extricated from their physical expressions? The problem with making such an assumption is that the very law which leads you to conclude that the universe had a beginning breaks down catastrophically at a point (due to quantum effects) just before the universe can be extrapolated to 0 (or nothingness) (see my previous discussion). So, at best, we can say the law is incomplete; but there's a chance that it can also be a catastrophically wrong theory that just happens to have discrete points of fantastic correlation with our presently observed universe. So with that chance existing, it is strictly speaking, necessary to qualify the statement about the beginning of the universe in this way: "The universe, as we know it, began to exist". Such tempered language, while uncommon in mainstream communication, is in fact standard within the academia, and even when not used, is usually understood to have been implied. Therefore, with the possible existence of a (physical) primordial singularity, you have not shown that it is necessary to extricate laws from their physical expressions. Which is what you are doing, thereby logically stretching a known law beyond its physical, and dare I say logical limits.

Oh no: for this is not the case at all: the particular definition of God which we lay out is well known, and stretches across most or all worldviews as far as definitions go: it is not limited to any ethnic or religious composition of God - but sets out the basics of that which we theologically and philosophically hold: that God is the self existent, eternal, transcendental, intangible creator of all that exists. Each of these words is important as those are the qualities sought to be proven, and not whatever you call Jago Jago, or the religious constrictions of Allah, Yahweh, Olodumare, Zeus, Brahman and all such.

That definition being clear, the logic of the matter as expatiated above deals already with the question of self-existence. For anything at all to exist, something or the other must self-exist already: as there can be no "nothing". This is iron-cast logic already. We know that the universe does not self exist as it had a beginning. Thus the existence of a self existent element which is not the universe is proven. It logically follows that if it is not the universe and if it caused matter to be, it cannot itself be matter. Thus it is proven to be immaterial. Once it exists outside of the universe it is transcendental. Thus the key elements of the definition are proven as logical and it does not matter if you choose to name that element Oloriburuku. That is your business. But the existence of the element is logically clear.

At the very least, I have shown that the creator does not have to be transcendental. Also, following the flaw which I pointed out earlier, I reject the claim that the universe does not self-exist. The universe as we know it, yes, but not necessarily the universe as the sum of all possible states. There may very well have been an epoch at (T~0+) in the universe where matter (or even individual particles) never existed at all, but the universe still existed.

As I have said above, God is infinite. I have only used the different terms "something" and "somethings" to refer separately to that transcendental permanent self existent element (of infinite nature) which I refer to as God as opposed to all other things that exist as a result. I hope that is clear now.

It is clear; and the transcendental attribute of god is clearly presumptive too.

Even where processes consume each other this does nothing to obviate the principle of causality at play.

Maybe not, but it questions the supposed immutability of the first cause if we refrain from extricating a law from its physical expression. There is no reason why you should assume any law can act independent of a process.

A self existent thing cannot mutate. That belies the very nature of self-existence. Now understand carefully why: the laws of motion give us to know that that which begins to move requires a cause or trigger. Mutation is as such an requires a cause or trigger. Thus things that change logically cannot be self existent as well. A self existent thing will permanently be of the same nature.

This supposition has its roots in classical laws, which as I have pointed out, do have their limits. Mutations can be truly random and uncaused according to the uncertainty principle.

Please when you speak of random fluctuations I hope you are not referring to virtual particles. I hope you also understand that the explanation I have just given in the paragraph above should show you why there can be no random mutations with a self existent thing. A self existent thing is immutable.

I was referring to virtual particles. I cannot apply the classical laws of motion to quantum phenomena. As such, I do not accept your previous explanation as a good reason why self-existence should preclude mutation.

Following from the explanation why self existent things are immutable, you should be able to understand why matter cannot be self existent. Because it is mutable.

I've never argued that matter is self-existent. But I don't accept that self-existent things cannot mutate.

I hope you understand now, however I am still available if you have further queries.

Thanks for clarifying. I enjoyed the depth with which you addressed my comments. Also, I withdraw my earlier charge of you being a terrible logician. You are logical to a fault!

DeepSight:

Just to address some snippets of your comments Sir - (However note my original revert to you above).

Okay sir

Yes it would appear you have terribly misunderstood the meaning of self existence.

This misunderstanding is now corrected, thanks

This is a sorry load of contradictions: however I am pleased to note that you have taken the trouble to point out the fallacies and contradictions yourself, so no matter.

1. As you already pointed out, the so called vacuum is not "nothing". Examples of virtual particles in quantum vacuums as evidence of things being uncaused are already flawed as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere in the universe and these vacuums referred to in fact contain low gaseous pressure. Therefore from the get go: the "fluctuations" / "particles" referred to are not emerging from nothing and once they are not emerging from nothing, the argument cannot be made that they are uncaused: even where one doesn't understand the cause of the fluctuations.

You are correct that there might be underlying causes for the apparently random behavior of the particles (or even, that the current model of the universe demands this). But understand that the current model has its limitations, and there is a chance that there might not be any underlying causes (since we don't fully understand what laws, if any, motivate such quantum phenomena). So far, many have tried using various versions of "hidden variables theory", to pin the underlying mechanism down, but no success yet...so I'm not rejecting determinism, I'm just rejecting the idea that it is the only possibility.

2. As Iredia pointed out, in the case of fluctuations you ought to avert your mind the to the question - what is fluctuating?

Our current understanding of vacuum is!

Your disclaimer is welcome but the idea of random fluctuations/ virtual particles in a quantum vacuum does nothing whatsoever to show things being uncaused or things emerging from nothingness.

Nothingness is not necessarily a realistic state!

Please go back and read my explanation on why self existent things are necessarily immutable and respond to that. And no, I did not limit the universe to matter, so please read carefully. Matter is permeated by the immaterial - however in referring to the universe in that context, I meant all that it is physically comprised of including its physical matter and physical energies. If all of these were caused by something else, that something else could not be physical itself. It would be non-physical: and this is what I sought to convey.

And, oh, what a big "IF"!

Please get this point very clear so that it is not a source of confusion in further discussion: when I refer to the material universe I refer to all its matter and physical energies as one continuing thing: When I refer to an immaterial element I do not refer to dark energy or other such elements within the universe. I refer to completely non physical transcendental elements beyond the universe and its material / physical nature.

Thanks for the clarification.

Stupidity is when you think you can understand the concept of the infinite and eternal God with your pitifully small mind.

If man had the intelligence to understand God, do you think there'll still be diseases like cancer and HIV Aids whose cure is yet to be found?

Congrats. The devil has you exaxtly where he wants you to be.

Ioannes:
Stupidity is when you think you can understand the concept of the infinite and eternal God with your pitifully small mind.

If man had the intelligence to understand God, do you think there'll still be diseases like cancer and HIV Aids whose cure is yet to be found?

Congrats. The devil has you exaxtly where he wants you to be.

Curing the “incurable” is standard business at the Burzynski Clinic

Though Burzynski has accomplished what he has, he has never been given funding for research from the FDA, even after receiving approval for clinical trials. The doctor has never been found at any fault with his work or practice. There are no valid indictments, despite decades of harassment. The natural cure clinic goes about its legal ways and cures people of cancer, without the help of the FDA, the CDC or any regulatory agency of the United States of America.

This alone should get millions of people “off the fence” – who are wondering whether they should try chemotherapy and radiation for their cancer, or antineoplastons and gene targeting natural therapies, that are tailored for each personal gene case study, body needs, and particular point in time with cancer development.

Burzynski clinic has amazingly high success with newly discovered cancer. The mainstream allopathic (crippled) system doesn’t want people to know that either.

Conversely and to America’s dismay, The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to conventional cancer research, which as we all know has been a failure. In fact, the federal government has prohibited taxpayer money from funding Dr. Burzynski’s highly successful research.

Second, the greedy goverment would only allow cancer patients to participate in Dr. Burzynski’s trials if they have already gone through conventional cancer treatments that have been deemed unsuccessful. With the exception of a few cases where exemptions were granted, most of Dr. Burzynski’s patients have come to him in extremely poor health as a result of the brain-frying, immune system-destroying chemotherapy and radiation treatments to which they were previously summoned — and yet the success rate of Dr. Burzynski’s treatment blows conventional treatments “out of the water.”

ScienceWatch:
Curing the “incurable” is standard business at the Burzynski Clinic

Though Burzynski has accomplished what he has, he has never been given funding for research from the FDA, even after receiving approval for clinical trials. The doctor has never been found at any fault with his work or practice. There are no valid indictments, despite decades of harassment. The natural cure clinic goes about its legal ways and cures people of cancer, without the help of the FDA, the CDC or any regulatory agency of the United States of America.

This alone should get millions of people “off the fence” – who are wondering whether they should try chemotherapy and radiation for their cancer, or antineoplastons and gene targeting natural therapies, that are tailored for each personal gene case study, body needs, and particular point in time with cancer development.

Burzynski clinic has amazingly high success with newly discovered cancer. The mainstream allopathic (crippled) system doesn’t want people to know that either.

Conversely and to America’s dismay, The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to conventional cancer research, which as we all know has been a failure. In fact, the federal government has prohibited taxpayer money from funding Dr. Burzynski’s highly successful research.

Second, the greedy government would only allow cancer patients to participate in Dr. Burzynski’s trials if they have already gone through conventional cancer treatments that have been deemed unsuccessful. With the exception of a few cases where exemptions were granted, most of Dr. Burzynski’s patients have come to him in extremely poor health as a result of the brain-frying, immune system-destroying chemotherapy and radiation treatments to which they were previously summoned — and yet the success rate of Dr. Burzynski’s treatment blows conventional treatments “out of the water.”

The answer to your question can finally be found in the Holy Scoan Church Nigeria. Also watch Emmanuel TV for answers and live demonstrations to many of life's mysterious problems.

UyiIredia:

‘There are many physical phenomena in the universe that are immaterial’

The highlighted statements contradict.
Why?

You're clearly a smart person, so I urge you to resist the temptation of equating your smartness to knowledge. This sort of arrogance is the downfall of many a smart person.

I repeat, there are physical phenomena that are immaterial. I assume you've heard of electromagnetic waves!

felixomor:


Hehehe

Who created the universe?

Who created the Universe.. lemme see.. Jehovah, Yahwey, Ra, Odin, Budha, Eledua, Chukwu, Allah.. take your pick... the God of religion is so confused that he manifests differently in different cultures constantly editing his biography and concept of existence and the afterlife.

Scalord:


Who created the Universe.. lemme see.. Jehovah, Yahwey, Ra, Odin, Budha, Eledua, Chukwu, Allah.. take your pick... the God of religion is so confused that he manifests differently in different cultures constantly editing his biography and concept of existence and the afterlife.

What u have only showed here is difference in language.
No sense made.

UyiIredia:

Yet more idiocy from you. Being composite doesn't prevent it from being basic. To the extent, most materials are composed of atoms it is basic. The idea that subatomic particles don't occupy any 'physical space' is idiotic. What does the particle exist in if not space ?

Physics is obviously not your forte, but that doesn't mean you should espouse this voluntary aversion to education, and with such crass savagery, no less.

1) "Basic form" has a specific meaning, so does "matter". When you say matter in its basic form, you're referring to matter in its most elementary state known to man. As far as the definition of "basic form"/"elementary" goes, a "composite" can never be a basic form of its constituents for obvious linguistic reasons (Mr. Comprehension). Quantity, "most" or few, has absolutely noting to do with it.

2) There is absolutely no evidence for the claim that most materials are composed of atoms. Let me educate you. Matter makes up about 30% of the known universe. of this, baryonic matter (to which all atoms belong) is estimated to be about 5%. Also, not all baryonic matter is composed of atoms (neutron stars for example). So the claim that most materials are composed of atoms is made out of ignorance. Correct it!

3) Since you believe "basic properties" ("in itself" ), connotes "basic form"; and then claim that "being composite doesn't prevent something from being basic (form)", haven't you plunged yourself into an awkward dilemma?! For I may then ask, if composite atoms can be a basic form of matter as you claim, then what stops the brain from also being a basic form of matter? The brain is no less a composite of baryonic matter than atoms are, is it?

4) Not all "particles" exist in space and have mass simultaneously (recall the definition of matter). In particle physics, "particles" are just called that out of convenience, because of the energy mass equivalency (Remember the famous E = mc²?), not because they occupy space and have mass. Sure enough, many of these particles have "masses" which are actually measured in units of energy (KeV, MeV, GeV), but they do not really occupy space, so they are merely high energy phenomena, not matter. Examples of such subatomic particles are quarks, neutrinos, pretty much all bosons (like photons which occupy neither space nor have any mass).

I implore you again, heed my previous advice about resisting that temptation to misconstrue your smartness for knowledge.