Ever8054:
..that ones sees nothing in a bowl and another letter sees whatever in it do not give "NOTHING" a different definition....here is the balance...
..(A)>sees "nothing "=common definition of nothing.
..(B)>sees "something"=common definition of something..
Note÷.eventuality,does not change meaning of word but can only change the word with a meaning that best describe the new event. so if Lawrence says" Nothing " to his audience the meaning of the word is established.
..in a case,he actually means "SOMETHING else"
he will definitely not use the already established word"NOTHING " in its original meaning to negotiate the "THING" on his mind.
.that is where the event changes and requires a new word with a meaning suitable to the change.

Lawrence,. says "NOTHING" but means something else=confusion in its original meaning nothing else..

Have u read the actual thing Lawrence said and how he said it? Pls I'm curious to know.

Ever8054:
..that ones sees nothing in a bowl and another letter sees whatever in it do not give "NOTHING" a different definition....here is the balance...
..(A)>sees "nothing "=common definition of nothing.
..(B)>sees "something"=common definition of something..
Note÷.eventuality,does not change meaning of word but can only change the word with a meaning that best describe the new event. so if Lawrence says" Nothing " to his audience the meaning of the word is established.
..in a case,he actually means "SOMETHING else"
he will definitely not use the already established word"NOTHING " in its original meaning to negotiate the "THING" on his mind.
.that is where the event changes and requires a new word with a meaning suitable to the change.

Lawrence,. says "NOTHING" but means something else=confusion in its original meaning nothing else..

Your points are noted, but please stay aside

ambassagod:


MR. man, can you do me a favour by "JUMPING OUT" of this debate.

So much irrationality!! And you aren't ashamed of that!

Good Night! You are not needed here.

Hint for followers:
Nothing means NOT A SINGLE THING.

Ashamed of what if I may ask? Seems u hate my personality and why is that?

OtemAtum:
Ashamed of what if I may ask? Seems u hate my personality and why is that?

Sorry, bye.

Don't reply again.

ambassagod:

Sorry, bye.

Don't reply again.

Thanks

I will be continuing tomorrow on my quest of comprehensively explaining "eternal" as an "Uncaused first cause" attribute. Good Night.

Firstly, I promised to comprehensively explain what the "eternal" attribute of God really means.

In the beginning, I said that God simply means an Uncaused first cause and as well used the word "eternal". And as well, I proposed that time has a beginning, and it's existence is completely dependent on the solar system, hence it can be determined, measured and calculated. Otherwise, TIME DOES NOT EXIST.

Now, I want to make something clear in my use of "eternal" as an attribute of God. To understand this, you gotta clear your mind so well, because without reading through this, my point wouldn't be obvious.

I will start be saying, for there to be a "First Cause", that entity MUST BE UNCAUSED, otherwise it is a product(effect) of a cause. And that disqualifies him from being a "First Cause".

However, from what we have seen so far in science; "Time has a beginning". Which means it is a caused entity. This brings us to a VERY LOGICAL FACT, that for there to be a "First Cause", it MUST HAVE BEEN BEFORE TIME WAS CAUSED INTO EFFECT, hence God(uncaused first cause) must exceed time. If that is logical, then it means that time has NO INFLUENCE over God's reality. (God and "uncaused first cause" is interchangeable).

From a point of view of God's reality outside a time viewpoint, WHEN time does not exist, (i.e that time has no influence over his reality because he has been before time was caused) I say that "God is NOT eternal".

Why say that? Eternal has "before" and "after" as points of reference and that shows time. Whereas God has no "before" and "after" because he is not ruled in time, otherwise he is a caused entity, that is an effect of a cause that existed "before" him.

So, why say that God is eternal initially? I said that God is eternal, because from our viewpoint of time(when time is in place) which has a beginning, we can simply imply that his existence extends ENDLESSLY backward(even before time was caused) and forward forever.


Any question is welcomed.

HopefulLandlord hope you are following?

ambassagod:
HopefulLandlord hope you are following?

hopefulandlord don excape,he is out there looking for someone with little knowledge about God and debate.so that he can showcase his ignorance...

Ever8054:
hopefulandlord don excape,he is out there looking for someone with little knowledge about God and debate.so that he can showcase his ignorance...

you're absolutely correct, okay

ambassagod:
Firstly, I promised to comprehensively explain what the "eternal" attribute of God really means.

In the beginning, I said that God simply means an Uncaused first cause and as well used the word "eternal". And as well, I proposed that time has a beginning, and it's existence is completely dependent on the solar system, hence it can be determined, measured and calculated. Otherwise, TIME DOES NOT EXIST.

Now, I want to make something clear in my use of "eternal" as an attribute of God. To understand this, you gotta clear your mind so well, because without reading through this, my point wouldn't be obvious.

I will start be saying, for there to be a "First Cause", that entity MUST BE UNCAUSED, otherwise it is a product(effect) of a cause. And that disqualifies him from being a "First Cause".

However, from what we have seen so far in science; "Time has a beginning". Which means it is a caused entity. This brings us to a VERY LOGICAL FACT, that for there to be a "First Cause", it MUST HAVE BEEN BEFORE TIME WAS CAUSED INTO EFFECT, hence God(uncaused first cause) must exceed time. If that is logical, then it means that time has NO INFLUENCE over God's reality. (God and "uncaused first cause" is interchangeable).

From a point of view of God's reality outside a time viewpoint, WHEN time does not exist, (i.e that time has no influence over his reality because he has been before time was caused) I say that "God is NOT eternal".

Why say that? Eternal has "before" and "after" as points of reference and that shows time. Whereas God has no "before" and "after" because he is not ruled in time, otherwise he is a caused entity, that is an effect of a cause that existed "before" him.

So, why say that God is eternal initially? I said that God is eternal, because from our viewpoint of time(when time is in place) which has a beginning, we can simply imply that his existence extends ENDLESSLY backward(even before time was caused) and forward forever.


Any question is welcomed.

I'm back, though still not balanced now

when science says "Time has a beginning" and you agree with that, what does that statement mean? or perhaps you don't agree

Hmm

I still need to point out something here again for the benefit of the readers even though I've already said it before

I'm not against the existence of first cause/unmoved mover but rather more of an agnostic to those kind of "arguments", there still remain mysteries and as long as there are still things beyond our explanations (at least for now) its would be stupid to rule such out indefinitely, consequently, I'm not against what I call "generic god", I'm always open to its existence and to be blunt

There seems to be a conflation of Deism and Theism here. One can be entirely open to the possibility of a Higher Form of intelligent life in/outside the universe. After all, the universe alone is VAST.

I don't want the readers to get the wrong information by thinking this post means I'm inconsistent which is why I'll post a quote of mine not long ago

hopefulLandlord:

I'm not the type of atheist that asserts there's no creator, there are no good and sincere arguments against one

I would actually be happy not to argue with theists and even admit they could be right if they just stopped at clamining: There is a god. I could respond: you might be right. So what? End of discussion. But then they don't stop at that. They automatically assume that admitting that possibility makes a specific god a realty and a whole ideology (however vile and ridiculous) the only true one. In other words after "proving" there is a god they immediately know what he (yes, it's a male god, obviously) thinks, wants, in every single detail.

what I argue against mostly are the claims attached to this said "transcendent" entity

this is one of the reasons I'm not the type that goes around arguing against deists/pantheists etc even Sean Carroll in his debate with WLC made it clear that whatever he says there "shouldn't be interpreted as him ruling out the existence of any higher power or creator or mover"

Rich Dawkins himself says he's 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale
for those not familiar with then Dawkins scale, below is the pic



it means that even he is not saying there's no god/not, I don't know many atheists that are making the philosophically absolute claim 'no god exists.' Most of the time, atheist assertions are more along the lines of 'there is no evidence for your conception of God existing.' so I argue more against the religious conception of god(s)

At the end of the day, he takes a smart escape route from the whole arguments after he has escaped all questions. This is the funniest debate I have ever had!

hopefulLandlord:
I still need to point out something here again for the benefit of the readers even though I've already said it before

I'm not against the existence of first cause/unmoved mover but rather more of an agnostic to those kind of "arguments", there still remain mysteries and as long as there are still things beyond our explanations (at least for now) its would be stupid to rule such out indefinitely, consequently, I'm not against what I call "generic god", I'm always open to its existence and to be blunt

There seems to be a conflation of Deism and Theism here. One can be entirely open to the possibility of a Higher Form of intelligent life in/outside the universe. After all, the universe alone is VAST.

I don't want the readers to get the wrong information by thinking this post means I'm inconsistent which is why I'll post a quote of mine not long ago

What I can point out clearly is that you are an agnostic and not atheistic. If you are open to the existence of GOD, why aren't you open on that same first cause when it comes to relating with man? You think that God is a product of religion, but that's very dumb and misinformed.

Religion is simply a means man would relate to that GENERIC GOD you said you aren't against. Religion never birthed God.

And saying you aren't sure if there is a first cause(God) is even dumber, because THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A FIRST CAUSE!! Otherwise, nothing would have existed. It is like saying you aren't sure how nothing would produce something; you don't have to be sure of that, because it is not even possible in the first place.


As for what you quoted, it is simply "Self deceit".

what I argue against mostly are the claims attached to this said "transcendent" entity

YES! It is a fact that there is GOD(an uncaused first cause). And for that to be possible he must be TRANSCENDENT, take note "MUST"! Most of you agnostics and atheists are yet to have a clue about "The God logic as an uncaused first caused".

Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word "TRANSCENDENT", but I wouldn't mind telling what it means.

That something is transcendent, or rather to transcend means “TO EXIST ABOVE and INDEPENDENT FROM; RISE ABOVE, SURPASS, SUCCEED.

Looking at the above meaning of the word "transcendent", how does God fall short of it? Most times, I couldn't help but to stand at awe seeing how you guys reason. Isn't the "First cause" beyond time. It is a fact that there MUST be an uncaused first cause, doesn't that mean that he MUST exist above all entities, be independent from all entities, SURPASS all entities? If not how then would he be an uncaused first cause?

this is one of the reasons I'm not the type that goes around arguing against deists/pantheists etc

But more of a misinformed type who KNOWS NOTHING about the logicality behind the existence of God. Who is so misinformed in his logical understanding to mock people who believe in he existence of God.

even Sean Carroll in his debate with WLC made it clear that whatever he says there "shouldn't be interpreted as him ruling out the existence of any higher power or creator or mover"

Rich Dawkins himself says he's 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale
for those not familiar with then Dawkins scale, below is the pic

It is simply an escape route, so forget about that.

it means that even he is not saying there's no god/not, I don't know many atheists that are making the philosophically absolute claim 'no god exists.' Most of the time, atheist assertions are more along the lines of 'there is no evidence for your conception of God existing.' so I argue more against the religious conception of god(s)

The bolded is critically false! Atheists believe there is no God. Maybe you think atheism is agnosticism. Richard Darwkins believe "THERE IS NO GOD". He might not be 100%, but 99% sure according to him.

Saying there is no evidence of God is like saying there is no evidence that for there to be an effect, there must be a cause. Talk about an extremely dumb argument.

Okay, now can we now argue about a relationship with God through religion(maybe Christianity) on a different thread, if you want to throw those questions you threw up there in the beginning again? But before this, you must not argue against the existence of God as a transcendent entity, because it is same as what we already have here. Otherwise, so avoid repetition or you forget it.

So, if you want you can create the thread and call me in.

Butterflylion this is the thread Hopefullandlord ran away from. I found it.

701ecilana:
Butter.flylion this is the thread Hopefu.llandlord ran away from. I found it.

try again, you still haven't found it but the link is right here on this thread

701ecilana:
Butterflylion this is the thread Hopefullandlord ran away from. I found it.

This says second debate but I have seen the first debate in the OP. Make I read am first

butterflylion:


This says second debate but I have seen the first debate in the OP. Make I read am first

Ok

701ecilana:

Ok

I have flipped through. Not much to see there sha but I saw someone who was first eager for a debate and then even before the debate began he got butterflies in his stomach and left Nairaland altogether.

Then resurfaces again suddenly as if he wishes to now go ahead with the debate but suddenly now hands over to Johnydon without any resistance whatsoever.

Now I see why you said he ran away.

Even this second debate he ran away as well

Na wa o. Na so the guy dey pika anyhow when person mention debate?

No wonder he is now running again when I insisted he should have a debate with me. It is not a small something

butterflylion:


I have flipped through. Not much to see there sha but I saw someone who was first eager for a debate and then even before the debate began he got butterflies in his stomach and left Nairaland altogether.

Then resurfaces again suddenly as if he wishes to now go ahead with the debate but suddenly now hands over to Johnydon without any resistance whatsoever.

Now I see why you said he ran away.

Even this second debate he ran away as well

Na wa o. Na so the guy dey pika anyhow when person mention debate?

No wonder he is now running again when I insisted he should have a debate with me. It is not a small something

Now you see.

701ecilana:

Now you see.

I see o. Usain Bolt must envy the guys take off speed.

Hopefullandlord the thread confirmed you ran and are still running. Why na?

butterflylion:


I see o. Usain Bolt must envy the guys take off speed.

Hopefullandlord the thread confirmed you ran and are still running. Why na?

That Promise01 was very angry, at a point i started feeling sorry for Hope.

701ecilana:

That Promise01 was very angry, at a point i started feeling sorry for Hope.

Is he still on Nairaland?

butterflylion:


Is he still on Nairaland?

He is the Ambasagod guy nah. But he rarely comments tho.

701ecilana:

He is the Ambasagod guy nah. But he rarely comments tho.

Oh OK sorry I missed that. But where is the ambassagod guy too?

butterflylion:


Oh OK sorry I missed that. But where is the ambassagod guy too?

He rarely comes online these days

butterflylion:

701ecilana:

You can see how atheists on NL use the bandwagon effect to sway the weak and uneducated Christians. They taunt, abuse, scream, make fun about and shout down any semblance to God, but when taken out on a one on one ride, they fall like a pack of cards. You actually see that as an entity, their ignorance of what they profess is amazing.

They first claim that they are atheists, after dealing with them with logical facts, they reduce themselves to Agnostics. I hope pride will not prevent them from the ultimate conviction that God, is.

ambassagod:

Did a good thrashing of the unHopefulLandlord

shadeyinka:


You can see how atheists on NL use the bandwagon effect to sway the weak and uneducated Christians. They taunt, abuse, scream, make fun about and shout down any semblance to God, but when taken out on a one on one ride, they fall like a pack of cards. You actually see that as an entity, their ignorance of what they profess is amazing.

They first claim that they are atheists, after dealing with them with logical facts, they reduce themselves to Agnostics. I hope pride will not prevent them from the ultimate conviction that God, is.


Did a good thrashing of the unHopefulLandlord

Sir, he didn't trash him here as much as he did in the previous thread. Oh My Lawd. I felt pity for hopefullandlord. Promise 01 is a bad ass guy.

701ecilana:

Sir, he didn't trash him here as much as he did in the previous thread. Oh My Lawd. I felt pity for hopefullandlord. Promise 01 is a bad ass guy.

It just showed the truth about atheism. Its a choice people make and later try to find excuses for justifying their choices. That's probably why atheists on NL sleep and wake up on the religion section.

Have you noticed that they seem not to attack islam? To them, Yahweh is the real enemy.

I didn't know that hopefullLandlord was that shallow and someone will because of him become an atheist.

shadeyinka:

It just showed the truth about atheism. Its a choice people make and later try to find excuses for justifying their choices. That's probably why atheists on NL sleep and wake up on the religion section.

Have you noticed that they seem not to attack islam? To them, Yahweh is the real enemy.

I didn't know that hopefullLandlord was that shallow and someone will because of him become an atheist.

I think am the only one here who sees through them. I keep shouting that Atheists, Islam(Muslims), Satanists, and Homosexuals have the same spirit behind them, yet you guys don't take me serious.

Most of us don't understand what Jesus means by 'A house divided against itself shall not stand'. These guys mentioned above have the same Master so can't fight themselves. If you see any Atheist trying to do so, watch how far he goes.

Another thing, have you seen any Catholic or JW guys in this forum bantering with the Atheists? Why not?

Catholics, JW, Homosexuals, Satanists, Atheists and all of them have issues with the Bible believing Christians(Evangelicals) why?

Okay, experiment this, open a thread casting Aspersions on Satan and watch Atheists and Homosexuals come at your throat.

Atheists, defend Homos and vise versa, Atheists defend Satanists, why?

Hahn just told me how his master satan is control my God. See?

THE DEEP CALLETH TO THE DEEP.

701ecilana:

I think am the only one here who sees through them. I keep shouting that Atheists, Islam(Muslims), Satanists, and Homosexuals have the same spirit behind them, yet you guys don't take me serious.

Most of us don't understand what Jesus means by 'A house divided against itself shall not stand'. These guys mentioned above have the same Master so can't fight themselves. If you see any Atheist trying to do so, watch how far he goes.

Another thing, have you seen any Catholic or JW guys in this forum bantering with the Atheists? Why not?

Catholics, JW, Homosexuals, Satanists, Atheists and all of them have issues with the Bible believing Christians(Evangelicals) why?

Okay, experiment this, open a thread casting Aspersions on Satan and watch Atheists and Homosexuals come at your throat.

Atheists, defend Homos and vise versa, Atheists defend Satanists, why?

Hahn just told me how his master satan is control my God. See?

THE DEEP CALLETH TO THE DEEP.

You are correct. Interestingly, a few weeks ago, an atheist took offence for me calling him a satanist. I told him that the title should be a compliment to him and not the other way round.

I just pity christians from churches who don't do bible studies or the "sunday-sunday" Christians. So easily moved by apparent display of "knowledge" of ignorant people who can shout "2 legs good 4 legs bad" repeatedly on the religion section.

I am not surprised! It is meant to be...a generation which doesn't know God and actually hate Him.

Stay blessed Sis

shadeyinka:

It just showed the truth about atheism. Its a choice people make and later try to find excuses for justifying their choices. That's probably why atheists on NL sleep and wake up on the religion section.

Have you noticed that they seem not to attack islam? To them, Yahweh is the real enemy.

I didn't know that hopefullLandlord was that shallow and someone will because of him become an atheist.

Anyone who holds hopdfullandlord in such high esteem as to recant his faith on an account of him, is either a stupid teenager or a lost soul, confused and dead.

It's becoming glaring now. Wen they floored threads trolling and insulting, just calm down, open a thread and invite them to debate.

See what Spacetacular did to Catfishbilly who was all over the place making noise, today he is humbled.
Adepeters who was making noise, is now so quiet because if he talks, Space will crush him.

These are people who are shouting intelligence everywhere o, Christians are crushing their balls everywhere in NL.

Where is KingEbukasblog sef?