oliver991:
this is endless topic I guess

check out https://liteblueuspsgov.us/ if you are are an employee of USPS

So it seems

Seun why do I keep getting banned?

IAmSabrina:
So,... XxSabrinaxX got banned for... no reason apparently . Also I really need to come online more often. Good to see the thread hasn't gone too far. In the meantime, I'll just book the next space for me to post when i'm ready

I don't know what is wrong with those spam bots. The algorithm has got to have some logical errors in how it flags spams. Welcome back

Sudden Silence!

The average Scientifically inclined Atheist strongly believe that the observables are our best and only means of understanding everything.
Questions:

1. But, How do you know concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics (the observables) apply beyond our observable universe?

Answer:
We can't know and it's even impossible!
2. If God does exist, He must transcend our observable universe as the cause. Can we then conclude that our observables are reliable basis of rejecting or accepting the possibility of a God?

Answer:
No?

3. Is "I don't know!" our best answer for the possibility of the existence of God?
Answer:
No!
In spite of the fact that our experiences of our observables are not a reliable basis for justifying or rejecting the existence of God, it doesn't stop us from probing deep into science and logic for possible answers.

4. Where does logic lead us?
Answer:
1. There is something mysterious and contradictory to normal logic concerning Origin of the sequence of Cause and Effect
2. The laws that initiated our current laws of physics and chemistry must be completely different
3. Logic show us that a (Uncaused) First Cause must Exist.
4. The First Cause may be either a Thing or a Being.


If the First Cause is a thing, how does it account for life and Consciousness?
If it is a thing, how does it account for interdependent systems and cycles of system?
If it is a thing, how did it "evolve" the DNA?

[quote author=shadeyinka post=83067535]

If the First Cause is a thing, how does it account for life and Consciousness?

if it is a being, how did it too gain consciousness? the universe may have no limit? if one being could appear randomly without a cause, doesn't that mean that other 'non caused' beings could also exist?

If it is a thing, how does it account for interdependent systems and cycles of system?

see above.

If it is a thing, how did it "evolve" the DNA?

surely there should be a principle behind the operus mandi of Gods own consciousness.
this arguments of yours would only get you trapped in a loop ad infinitum.

Adam and Eve.

[quote author=kkins25 post=83071580][/quote]
If the current laws of nature were not valid at the time before the First Cause was causing the other causes, can you truly use the current law as a valid judge?

By the current laws, we have to account for how Life or Consciousness came to be but this unreasonable if a different unknown laws were in operation before the time of the First Cause!

shadeyinka:
Sudden Silence!

Not quite! Been peeking at this place from a distance since the unexplained, unceremonious ban of my IAm and Xx monikers. If not, your questions have been answered ages ago. You just wait and relax, lemme grab a shut eye before we resume this argument

XxSabrinaxX:

Not quite! Been peeking at this place from a distance since the unexplained, unceremonious ban of my IAm and Xx monikers. If not, your questions have been answered ages ago. You just wait and relax, lemme grab a shut eye before we resume this argument

Welcome back!

Sabrina3:

And you have been told time without number that scientists are still debating the topic and there is no way in the world you can know this. I have referred you to two research papers in my previous post. Unless you can understand those papers extensively, you have demonstrated nothing but your own ignorance. Please don't be lying, it's tedious and painful to watch. I take my stance from Bertrand Russell who said; That a thing has not been proved to be false does not make it true. See Russell's Teapot and Argument From Ignorance.

Logic is not a reliable tool for obtaining truth. A valid logical inference may be false, and often is with syllogisms. A logical inference is true if and only if the premise is true! Logic applies to nothing. Logic without evidence is mental masturbation. There is no math formula that has God for an answer.

Physicist Lawrence Krauss today argues the universe came from nothing. Stephen Hawking argues that there was no BEFORE before the Big Bang! You and I simply do not have the sufficient training or knowledge to access these claims.

Think before you post, shadeyinka. Think!


That is a false dilemma. You are postulating only two options when there could be more.

Why just a thing or entity instead of a process? The evolution of energy after the big bang and the conversion of energy into matter was also a process. And since they are connected to the origin of the universe, by what logic can we firmly discount processes and narrow it down to just a thing or a being?

I just added one more subject to the (postulated) first cause. There may be more, and we must be careful not to fall into a false dilemma. Let me know when you have discounted every other option, and please list them.


STILL EDITING

1. Modifying Bertrand Russell's quote:
"That a thing has not been Scientifically proved to be false TRUE does not make it true UNTRUE."
That is:
That God cannot be scientifically proved does NOT make Him inexistent!

2. You need to understand why there would never be a final conclusive answer from Physicists: the reason is because the laws of Physics took effect from the Big Bang. The God equation exists well before the BB therefore like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle we have reached the limit of physical observation and mathematics.

Laurence Krause and Stephen Hawking are both apostles of Atheism: hence, you can imagine if they end up agreeing that an Uncaused First Cause exist. That is unthinkable for now. They are knowledgeable no doubt but their theories are not even universally accepted among physicists meaning that there is NO Scientific answer yet.

3. Like I said: I have stopped argument with the physics and thermodynamics because the little I know from the current laws seem to say from entropy and thermodynamics point of view that infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible, from Computer programming I established that a computer code cannot generate itself from alpha-numerics but from a Programmer.

Your argument was that I should apply for Nobel prize in physics (as obviously, my physics is till elementary compared to the Krause and Hawkins)

4. I then proceeded to use pure logic. Three postulates that can't be faulted by our current experience. And it's the same conclusion: just as the laws of physics was violates, Logic too was violated. Is this a coincidence?

It's like a chess game. The more the simultaneous attack on the king, the higher the probability of a checkmate.

Finally:
I think it's obvious that before this present laws of Science, Logic and Mathematics came into effect, a different kind of law prevail. This law violates our present understanding and experience and the least we can project is that
i. An Uncaused First Cause exist.
ii. The Uncaused First Cause is either a Thing or a Being.

Modified:
A process is just a sequence of causes and their effects

.

IvoryWing:

Hi! This is Sabrina and apparently the anti-spam bots have determined that my input on this thread is no longer welcome LOL. Anyways, if you're still interested in having this argument, you could PM me and we'll continue via mail.

I suspect that the problem is from copying text from somewhere and pasting in Nairaland especially when it is beyond a certain number of words. I think seun should educate people on spambot violation rules in addition to NL rules.

.

IvoryWing:

Yeah. To be fair, I kept trying to link a full wall of text debunking your causality argument. Oh well, you could send me a PM and we'll begin whenever you and I are ready

Except to be just friends. My email is mainly for business. But there is always another time.

shadeyinka:

I do very well agree with you. A new heaven and a new earth.
I understand your last paragraph!

Very well, my brother.

LMFAO!

LordReed:
LMFAO!

Why sneak this here?

Do you think your last post make any iota of sense?

shadeyinka:

Why sneak this here?

Do you think your last post make any iota of sense?

Sneak what? Are you the gatekeeper for the thread?

LordReed:


Sneak what? Are you the gatekeeper for the thread?

Do you think your last post make any iota of sense?

LordReed:

Sneak what? Are you the gatekeeper for the thread?

LOL. So it seems.

shadeyinka:

Do you think your last post make any iota of sense?

As a joke it makes too much sense.

XxSabrinaxX:

LOL. So it seems.

A terrible one then.

LordReed:


As a joke it makes too much sense.

1.Let's agree that we currently do not know any method better than the "observables" that can be used for establishing facts about realities.

2. Let's also agree that If God truly exist as the Uncaused First Cause of Everything, He must be beyond our current laws of thermodynamics, logic and mathematics.

Then, be truthful:

How do you LordReed know that the observables and concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics apply beyond our observable universe?

shadeyinka:

1.Let's agree that we currently do not know any method better than the "observables" that can be used for establishing facts about realities.

2. Let's also agree that If God truly exist as the Uncaused First Cause of Everything, He must be beyond our current laws of thermodynamics, logic and mathematics.

Then, be truthful:

How do you LordReed know that the observables and concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics apply beyond our observable universe?

What has this got to do with my joke?

LordReed:


What has this got to do with my joke?

Your joke is dry!
It has nothing to do with it.

It has something to do with your first post with picture attached

shadeyinka:

Your joke is dry!
It has nothing to do with it.

I has something to do with your first post.

Those that laughed, laughed. Your opinion of the joke is irrelevant.