outc@st:


But the question is: Can't God kill himself if he wants to?

It can and has, by not effectuating matter. This contradicts the notion that God can't die. But life and death are abstracts too. You can't point to life - only things that exhibit life. Neither can you point to death - only things that exhibit death. This suggests to me that what we note to be life and death are, per se, immaterial.

Consider this: Are you dead, when you fall into a deep, dreamless, unconscious sleep or alive when you, as a child, without consciously knowing it, take your first baby steps ?

dorox: It means that God's will is subject to no one. Asking if God can self destruct is redundant, it cannot be part of his will.

It is as meaningless to me as saying zero exists. If zero denotes, nothing, why must a digit be used to express it ? I think God as immaterial intelligence (space or energy) has the innate capacity to become the percieved material world. We humans endowed with high I.Q's see the material world act in ways we describe and we describe life and death. What plagues humans is the paradox of beings: contingent on matter being able to think/infer/feel beyond material reality.

Morning Uyi,

I wonder why I am struggling to understand your comment...

Uyi Iredia:

It can and has, by not effectuating matter. This contradicts the notion that God can't die.

"Not effectuating matter" contradicts the notion that God can't die? What exactly do you mean by "effectuating matter"? If by "effectuating matter" you mean that God has not produced result(s) in matter then the question is how?

Uyi Iredia:
But life and death are abstracts too. You can't point to life - only things that exhibit life. Neither can you point to death - only things that exhibit death. This suggests to me that what we note to be life and death are, per se, immaterial.

Well I am not sure how relevant the above is to the discourse but still, you are correct to hold the view that life and death in themselves are non-substantive terms; but despite this, life and death are two phenomena whose occurrence are detectable whilst in this 'physical realm'.

Uyi Iredia:
Consider this: Are you dead, when you fall into a deep, dreamless, unconscious sleep or alive when you, as a child, without consciously knowing it, take your first baby steps ?

Does consciousness or awareness really determine whether an individual is dead or alive? I believe that death can only be determined when an individual has lost the ability to independently keep his heart and other vital functions going through the natural process.

For the individual who is in a coma of some sort, as long as he is still capable of keeping his heart going naturally then he is still alive while for the child, there is some level of consciousness but whether the child remembers or not is a completely different matter.

striktlymi: Morning Uyi,

Good afternoon

striktlymi: I wonder why I am struggling to understand your comment...

Okay. I too encounter problems understanding some concepts - especially those expressed mathematically.

striktlymi: "Not effectuating matter" contradicts the notion that God can't die? What exactly do you mean by "effectuating matter"? If by "effectuating matter" you mean that God has not produced result(s) in matter then the question is how?

I'll do my best to get across my thoughts. By 'effectuating matter' I meant God makes matter.
I believe God is immaterial (spirit as theists say, the energy scientists speak of, the nothingness in which all matter exist) As this immaterial/spirit/energy/nothingness God is 'not existent' (or 'dead'). An immaterial God perforce can make the physical world we experience. How ? By willing so. Unlike humans, God is not constrained to use a physical body to build a physical thing. That is why philosophers say God is non-contingent. Humans who are contingent on physical bodies need their body and matter (which God can and has evidently made) to make what they think of (letters, pens, wheels etc). I wish to go on but I'll stop here.

striktlymi: Well I am not sure how relevant the above is to the discourse but still, you are correct to hold the view that life and death in themselves are non-substantive terms; but despite this, life and death are two phenomena whose occurrence are detectable whilst in this 'physical realm'.

Yes. Life and Death are indeed non-subtantative. The thing is humans need bodies to exist, God doesn't. Human bodies are constrained in a created physical world to live or die within certain limits. I know of humans remaining underwater for more than 5 minutes without breathing and remaining conscious. A certain Severinsen has done that for more than 20 minutes. However, it's impossible (in spite of your ability to wish so) for a human to survive under water for hours without air (as breathing mammals like whales and dolphins do). This is because God has conceived the earth and all in it to act within limits. Do exceptions to this limits occur, yes. A few atheists believe in paranormal experiences a popular example is Sam Harris

striktlymi: Does consciousness or awareness really determine whether an individual is dead or alive? I believe that death can only be determined when an individual has lost the ability to independently keep his heart and other vital functions going through the natural process.

This is a knotty issue. The important thing to note is that humans necessarily look at death wrt their body. The funny thing is after a person is clinically dead (heart stops for a certain period) some vitals (e.g hair growth and nail growth) continue.

striktlymi: For the individual who is in a coma of some sort, as long as he is still capable of keeping his heart going naturally then he is still alive while for the child, there is some level of consciousness but whether the child remembers or not is a completely different matter.

Whether you are conscious or not, certain bodily functions occur. So you aren't responsible for your body's operation (talkless of its formation). Even when you are conscious, certain things you can't do (e.g fly with your body) because of the way your body is concieved.

This is how I would answer my question: Ignoring the continuance of living functions, you are dead when you drift into a dreamless, unconscious sleep. Why ? Because you like dead corpses are unaware of what happens to your body or outside of your body, neither is there a 'dream world' you percieve to various extents. You wake up from this state. Some humans aren't as fortunate. They don't do and their vitals stop. Some don't for an extended period and have to be fed etc to sustain their vitals to allow the possibility of waking up - coma. BTW sometimes people in coma die long afterwards.

I agree with your answer about the child expatiating it will worsen what I fear is too verbose.

Uyi Iredia:

Good afternoon


Okay. I too encounter problems understanding some concepts - especially those expressed mathematically.

Now let's take this piece by piece...

Uyi Iredia:
I'll do my best to get across my thoughts. By 'effectuating matter' I meant God makes matter.

Okay...so since by "effectuating matter" you mean that God makes matter, do I take it that by "not effectuating matter" you mean that God is not found in matter i.e he is non-physical?

Uyi Iredia:
I believe God is immaterial (spirit as theists say, the energy scientists speak of, the nothingness in which all matter exist) As this immaterial/spirit/energy/nothingness God is 'not existent' (or 'dead').

Whoa! Slow down man...so many concepts all lumped into one...

God is immaterial...your belief...which I think is cool. Theists (which as at the last time I checked you were one) call it spirit which still is the immaterial thingy you talked about...now for the scientists bit of it being some sort of energy...hmmmm...I have my thoughts on this but would shelve it for now...

When you say that all matter exists in nothingness, now here is a concept I am struggling with. Do you mean matter exists in space or you actually meant 'nothingness'? If indeed you believe matter exists in nothingness then the question is how is this compatible with science?

Matter is not 'nothing' which makes it necessarily 'something', so how do you reconcile the existence of 'something' in nothing? Don't you think there is a conflict here? Another question that comes to mind would be: can 'nothing' bring about 'something'?

If God is immaterial does this automatically make him 'nothing'? We know that our thoughts are not substantive i.e they are immaterial, does this then make our thoughts nothing? Or are our thoughts dead because they are immaterial? And how can a non-existent God bring about things that exists?

Maybe I do not understand what you mean.

Uyi Iredia:
An immaterial God perforce can make the physical world we experience. How ? By willing so. Unlike humans, God is not constrained to use a physical body to build a physical thing. That is why philosophers say God is non-contingent. Humans who are contingent on physical bodies need their body and matter (which God can and has evidently made) to make what they think of (letters, pens, wheels etc). I wish to go on but I'll stop here.

Would have loved you to continue but no biggy...let's work with what you have up there. Now, how can 'nothingness' have a 'will'?

Uyi Iredia:
Yes. Life and Death are indeed non-subtantative. The thing is humans need bodies to exist, God doesn't. Human bodies are constrained in a created physical world to live or die within certain limits. I know of humans remaining underwater for more than 5 minutes without breathing and remaining conscious. A certain Severinsen has done that for more than 20 minutes. However, it's impossible (in spite of your ability to wish so) for a human to survive under water for hours without air (as breathing mammals like whales and dolphins do). This is because God has conceived the earth and all in it to act within limits. Do exceptions to this limits occur, yes. A few atheists believe in paranormal experiences a popular example is Sam Harris

Okay!

Uyi Iredia:
This is a knotty issue. The important thing to note is that humans necessarily look at death wrt their body. The funny thing is after a person is clinically dead (heart stops for a certain period) some vitals (e.g hair growth and nail growth) continue.

So it seems but I don't think that nails and hair grows after death...the likely cause of that is probable because after death the body experiences some sought of muscle contraction. When some muscles contract, some other parts seem to grow.

Uyi Iredia:
Whether you are conscious or not, certain bodily functions occur. So you aren't responsible for your body's operation (talkless of its formation). Even when you are conscious, certain things you can't do (e.g fly with your body) because of the way your body is concieved.

The bold is debatable...to a large extent we are responsible for how our body operates.

Uyi Iredia:
This is how I would answer my question: Ignoring the continuance of living functions, you are dead when you drift into a dreamless, unconscious sleep. Why ? Because you like dead corpses are unaware of what happens to your body or outside of your body, neither is there a 'dream world' you percieve to various extents. You wake up from this state. Some humans aren't as fortunate. They don't do and their vitals stop. Some don't for an extended period and have to be fed etc to sustain their vitals to allow the possibility of waking up - coma. BTW sometimes people in coma die long afterwards.

Hmmmm....interesting thought but I believe in your comment above you clearly differentiated between one who is dead and another who is alive. Lack of consciousness does not really determine death.

An individual who loses consciousness but yet to die is not taken off to be buried because his vitals are still functioning but for a dead individual we can only talk about burial because the corpse is incapable of 'coming back to life', other factors remaining equal.

Uyi Iredia:
I agree with your answer about the child expatiating it will worsen what I fear is too verbose.

Okay, cool!

striktlymi:



Now let's take this piece by piece...

Okay.

[quote author=striktlymi]
Okay...so since by "effectuating matter" you mean that God makes matter, do I take it that by "not effectuating matter" you mean that God is not found in matter i.e he is non-physical?

Yes.

striktlymi: Whoa! Slow down man...so many concepts all lumped into one...


God is immaterial...your belief...which I think is cool. Theists (which as at the last time I checked you were one) call it spirit which still is the immaterial thingy you talked about...now for the scientists bit of it being some sort of energy...hmmmm...I have my thoughts on this but would shelve it for now...

Not some sort of energy. Energy. When you say sort of you mean the way energy is expressed as light, electricity, motion, chemical reactions and nuclear. Always note that when you ask for energy you are referred to a material (no matter how small or big).

striktlymi: When you say that all matter exists in nothingness, now here is a concept I am struggling with. Do you mean matter exists in space or you actually meant 'nothingness'? If indeed you believe matter exists in nothingness then the question is how is this compatible with science?

I think we mean the same thing. What definition of space are you working with ?

striktlymi: Matter is not 'nothing' which makes it necessarily 'something', so how do you reconcile the existence of 'something' in nothing?

The simple fact that I see photos drawings Earth, the Sun, stars, moon and other planets moving without a material support in a dark space.

striktlymi: Don't you think there is a conflict here? Another question that comes to mind would be: can 'nothing' bring about 'something'?

No conflict save this: if 'nothing' truly doesn't exist you can't think of it.

An analogy I think of helps resolve the conflict. When we are taught numbers we learn by association of digit to a material o
bject (eg beads, apples, stones etc) when we are taught the number 0 all see is the digit 0. No material basis is presented save for the digit. It is an immaterial presented as if it were material. Kids intuitively grasp this.

You mean how can. Because in your experience you need 'a thing' to make 'another thing'. This is why I told you, you put God in a box. You NOTE that you to implement what you think of, need a material body and matter itself. IOW you are constrained to act thru the physical world. If God is indeed the first cause, and is non-contingent, this immaterial must perforce effect the material.

striktlymi: If God is immaterial does this automatically make him 'nothing'? We know that our thoughts are not substantive i.e they are immaterial, does this then make our thoughts nothing? Or are our thoughts dead because they are immaterial? And how can a non-existent God bring about things that exists?

The paradox you must always note with nothing is that it is tied wrt a thing, and involves treating what isn't there 'absence of things' as a thing. No, because you treat 'nothing' (your thoughts) as something (a word, a voice, a machine, an action), you know it can be expressed. Hence, thoughts necessarily exist, to be candid really, you find it hard to say when you started thinking, you find out,you can. By wishing/willing so, as immaterial thought, God IS NOT constrained (and so are humans) as matter, God is constrained and made evident in a certain manner (eg the sky appearing blue and not appearing purple etc).

striktlymi: Maybe I do not understand what you mean.

You have the capacity. I fear you'll have to infer what I mean. This is what certain philosophers referred to as the problem of language.

striktlymi: Would have loved you to continue but no biggy...let's work with what you have up there. Now, how can 'nothingness' have a 'will'?

Ask yourself. If I was unconscious WOULD I know ? Think of nothingness as a will, the way 'non-extant' fictional characters have personalities.

striktlymi: So it seems but I don't think that nails and hair grows after death...the likely cause of that is probable because after death the body experiences some sought of muscle contraction. When some muscles contract, some other parts seem to grow.

Exactly. The are acting under outside forces not internally-generated forces.

striktlymi: The bold is debatable...to a large extent we are responsible for how our body operates.

Your body is composed of parasympathetic (automatic) and sympathetic (manual) nervous systems. They are intertwined. Without consciously thinking you can breathe, but you can take over and control your breathing (you do this when you swim) Any way, it depends on how you look at it.

striktlymi: Hmmmm....interesting thought but I believe in your comment above you clearly differentiated between one who is dead and another who is alive. Lack of consciousness does not really determine death.

Agreed.

striktlymi: An individual who loses consciousness but yet to die is not taken off to be buried because his vitals are still functioning but for a dead individual we can only talk about burial because the corpse is incapable of 'coming back to life', other factors remaining equal.

Indeed. I'm considering the unaccounted-for factors responsible for the resurrections of various people (who were quite dead).

Uyi Iredia: Yes.


Not some sort of energy. Energy. When you say sort of you mean the way energy is expressed as light, electricity, motion, chemical reactions and nuclear. Always note that when you ask for energy you are referred to a material (no matter how small or big).

Like I said, I will shelve my thoughts on the 'Energy' thingy for now.

Uyi Iredia: I think we mean the same thing. What definition of space are you working with ?

I am working with this definition. As you can see, the definition does not imply 'space' is nothing. Space can either be empty or occupied but really when one says: there is an empty space, he does not mean that space is nothing.

Uyi Iredia: The simple fact that I see photos drawings Earth, the Sun, stars, moon and other planets moving without a material support in a dark space.

Now, these phrases are different: "matter exists in space" and "matter exists in nothingness"...if we want to use them interchangeably then we would have no option but to say that 'space' means 'nothing' which doesn't quite cut it.

'Space' unlike 'nothing' is observable and subject to human perception. At the minimum we can see space but no one can perceive 'nothing' using our sensory organs. So when we say that 'matter exists in nothing', this necessarily creates a conflict as far as human 'perception' goes.

Bringing it all together...nothing is derived from the root words 'no' and 'thing'...'no' denotes 'negation' while 'thing' connotes 'existence'. An 'idea' though non-substantive in itself is a 'thing' in the very least. Not having an idea denotes the negation of that thing (idea) in other words the idea is non-existent.

To say then that God is 'nothing' because he is not physical would be inappropriate because then we necessarily say that God does not exist and if God does not exist we necessarily imply that the Universe and everything in it do not exist...now I am talking too much again.

Uyi Iredia: No conflict save this: if 'nothing' truly doesn't exist you can't think of it.

Well Uyi, not quite...thinking of 'nothing' only depicts one thing: the existence of thoughts and not 'nothing'. Thoughts like I mentioned before are non-substantive in themselves and also immaterial but they do exist and their existence is only evident when we think.

When humans think about the word 'nothing' we only try to make sense of what pre-existence would mean i.e there was no existence before something came to be. Now, I understand your viewpoint on this matter...if we say the universe was created from 'nothing' then it presupposes the existence of 'nothing.

But if we take a cursory look at the matter the first thought should be: what exactly is existence ? From that definition we can readily see that to exist means to have an objective reality. Does nothing have an objective reality? My answer would be NO!!!

Uyi Iredia: An analogy I think of helps resolve the conflict. When we are taught numbers we learn by association of digit to a material o
bject (eg beads, apples, stones etc) when we are taught the number 0 all see is the digit 0. No material basis is presented save for the digit. It is an immaterial presented as if it were material. Kids intuitively grasp this.

For starters, all numbers are non-substantive and immaterial but numerals i.e the symbols used to represent these numbers are substantive and material. The number zero is meant to represent a state of non-existence i.e what was before any number came to be.

This does not imply that zero exists because the number zero represents a state of nothingness with no objective reality and as such, the numeral 'zero' is used to represent a state of non-existence.

Uyi Iredia:
You mean how can. Because in your experience you need 'a thing' to make 'another thing'. This is why I told you, you put God in a box. You NOTE that you to implement what you think of, need a material body and matter itself. IOW you are constrained to act thru the physical world. If God is indeed the first cause, and is non-contingent, this immaterial must perforce effect the material.

Lol!!! If we say God is 'nothing' that is when we put him in a box or no box at all because it would mean that he does not exist. God is the only being who can cause existence out of non-existence and for him to be able to perform this operation he needs to exist.

Note that non-existence here does not have an objective reality, just like 'nothing'.

Uyi Iredia: The paradox you must always note with nothing is that it is tied wrt a thing,

The above I agree with...'nothing' is a relative term.

Uyi Iredia:
and involves treating what isn't there 'absence of things' as a thing.

Not quite Uyi! We really do not treat 'absence of things' as things in themselves. This is where some of us get it wrong. We use things that do exist to depict or represent those that do not. This does not mean that we are treating 'nothing' as 'something'.

The human mind is such that it associates itself with whatever it can relate with. For instance, if we ask a blind man to describe what a nose looks like...the blind man can only tell us what he has been told. His mental image of a nose would be very different from what you and I have, though nose exist and is substantive.

In order to help the human mind work with this notion of 'nothing' or non-existence, it is expedient that we use what we can relate with to depict it otherwise the term would make no sense to any of us.

Uyi Iredia:
No, because you treat 'nothing' (your thoughts) as something (a word, a voice, a machine, an action), you know it can be expressed.

Lol!!! C'mon now Uyi, do you honestly believe that our thoughts are 'nothing'? When we think, there is brain activity and that in itself is 'something' and not 'nothing'. There is no activity, no matter how little, when we talk about 'nothing'.

Uyi Iredia:
Hence, thoughts necessarily exist, to be candid really, you find it hard to say when you started thinking, you find out,you can. By wishing/willing so, as immaterial thought, God IS NOT constrained (and so are humans) as matter, God is constrained and made evident in a certain manner (eg the sky appearing blue and not appearing purple etc).

I am trying to understand this but I think I get the picture.

Uyi Iredia: You have the capacity. I fear you'll have to infer what I mean. This is what certain philosophers referred to as the problem of language.

Hmmm...if I infer what you mean in my confused state don't you think that I stand the risk of misrepresenting your words or thoughts, just like people misrepresent Sacred scriptures?

Uyi Iredia: Ask yourself. If I was unconscious WOULD I know ? Think of nothingness as a will, the way 'non-extant' fictional characters have personalities.

Hmmm...if one is unconscious there is no demonstrable will. Fictional characters only demonstrate the will of their creators, hence they do not have wills of their own. God has a will because he is something, a sovereign and he exists

Uyi Iredia: Exactly. The are acting under outside forces not internally-generated forces.


Your body is composed of parasympathetic (automatic) and sympathetic (manual) nervous systems. They are intertwined. Without consciously thinking you can breathe, but you can take over and control your breathing (you do this when you swim) Any way, it depends on how you look at it.

Good! Agreed! The above shows that a number of our body functions are entirely our responsibility e.g moving from point 'A' to point 'B' depends on us...the body won't do that on its own.

Uyi Iredia: Agreed.


Indeed. I'm considering the unaccounted-for factors responsible for the resurrections of various people (who were quite dead).

Okay!

Sorry I delayed. The anti-spambot banned me. I wish we could chat but I think it wiser we discuss here for the sake of our posterity. I am on your replies. Before I forge ahead I must ask: if you take space to mean something can it be destroyed ?

Uyi Iredia: Sorry I delayed. The anti-spambot banned me.

Welcome to the club! Thank God you are back now!

Uyi Iredia:
I wish we could chat but I think it wiser we discuss here for the sake of our posterity.

I assume I am still part of your BBM contacts; feel free to buzz me anytime you want to discuss an 'ish', though I might be a bit 'clumsy' there ...anyways, I agree that this present discourse is great here.

Uyi Iredia:
I am on your replies. Before I forge ahead I must ask: if you take space to mean something can it be destroyed ?

It depends on what you mean by destroy? It is known that matter cannot be created nor destroyed by any known human means. If we cannot destroy matter, how then can we destroy space?

The answer hence is that space cannot be destroyed in this sense but when we occupy a given space, it can be assumed to have been 'destroyed' safe for the fact that the space pops right up again when we remove the 'obstacles'.

striktlymi:

Like I said, I will shelve my thoughts on the 'Energy' thingy for now.

Hmmm.

'It is in striktlymi's interest to conceal a matter
It is in Uyi's interest to find out the matter"

striktlymi:
I am working with this definition. As you can see, the definition does not imply 'space' is nothing. Space can either be empty or occupied but really when one says: there is an empty space, he does not mean that space is nothing.

Even right after skimming your reply I felt we are agreeing on the main points. That God necessarily exists bit fighting on how his/its existence is connected to all reality.

striktlymi:
Now, these phrases are different: "matter exists in space" and "matter exists in nothingness"...if we want to use them interchangeably then we would have no option but to say that 'space' means 'nothing' which doesn't quite cut it.

Space meaning nothing cuts it for me. I think like Einstein did you assume space has material properties that make our universe operate the way it does.

striktlymi:
'Space' unlike 'nothing' is observable and subject to human perception. At the minimum we can see space but no one can perceive 'nothing' using our sensory organs. So when we say that 'matter exists in nothing', this necessarily creates a conflict as far as human 'perception' goes.

Agreed. Nothing is inferred. Indeed we don't and can't percieve nothing. We infer it by reason. This is what Kant meant when he said space (which I take to mean nothing) is an intuition of the mind.

striktlymi:
Bringing it all together...nothing is derived from the root words 'no' and 'thing'...'no' denotes 'negation' while 'thing' connotes 'existence'. An 'idea' though non-substantive in itself is a 'thing' in the very least. Not having an idea denotes the negation of that thing (idea) in other words the idea is non-existent.

Agreed.

striktlymi:
To say then that God is 'nothing' because he is not physical would be inappropriate because then we necessarily say that God does not exist and if God does not exist we necessarily imply that the Universe and everything in it do not exist...now I am talking too much again.

I'll be very explicit here. God is both physical and non-physical Humans are physical with non-physical (thoughts). To help you absorb this consider this: numbers are both finite and infinite. Numbers are finite because we can choose a large or small number. Numbers are infinite because there is NO NUMBER greater than all others

striktlymi:
Well Uyi, not quite...thinking of 'nothing' only depicts one thing: the existence of thoughts and not 'nothing'. Thoughts like I mentioned before are non-substantive in themselves and also immaterial but they do exist and their existence is only evident when we think.

Agreed.

striktlymi:
When humans think about the word 'nothing' we only try to make sense of what pre-existence would mean i.e there was no existence before something came to be. Now, I understand your viewpoint on this matter...if we say the universe was created from 'nothing' then it presupposes the existence of 'nothing.

As I said below. Rephrasing what you meant, pre-existence is a world with no matter. @ bolded: Gbam ! That's why I say nothing perforce can effect matter. Why because is simply consciousness not yet revealed. People do this intuitively by entering deep, dreamless sleeps and waking up from it.

striktlymi:
But if we take a cursory look at the matter the first thought should be: what exactly is existence ? From that definition we can readily see that to exist means to have an objective reality. Does nothing have an objective reality? My answer would be NO!!!

Why not ? I think it does has a reality because we can THINK OF it.
Why you say it isn't real is because 'nothing' gives the impression of a world without matter.

striktlymi:
For starters, all numbers are non-substantive and immaterial but numerals i.e the symbols used to represent these numbers are substantive and material. The number zero is meant to represent a state of non-existence i.e what was before any number came to be.

That's it. That's why I said the immaterial perforce gives rise to the material. After you said non-existence you defined it as . . . Thank you ! what was. Was is a participle that denotes existence.

striktlymi:
This does not imply that zero exists because the number zero represents a state of nothingness with no objective reality and as such, the numeral 'zero' is used to represent a state of non-existence.

LOOOL !

This reminds me of when DeepSight tried to use numbers to defend God. In "Proving God Using Empirical Reasoning" He started with 0 + 0 = 0 and argued that it means nothing can't come from nothing. He then said 0 + 1 = 1 showed that something was needed for the everything to exist. A Christian had countered that 0=1 (which he felt DS was doing) had been debunked. After DS had propounded his thesis atheists asked where he got his 1 from and why one can't assume that 1=1 and the universe is eternal. I think even mazaje noted that DS argument implied 1=2. I noted a single FACT: thinking people propounding symbols, thinking people arguing over what these symbols mean, thinking people refusing to accept the MEANING of these symbols. To be candid I could equate it anyhow. I may resurrect that thread.

3 years after. We are arguing the symbols. 0 could be TAKEN TO be non-existence. But you FORGET it is only conscious, thinking things that can contemplate non-existence. Just the way an atheist could be said to BELIEVE he lacks a belief. Nuff said. I'll leave you to meditate on this.

striktlymi:
Lol!!! If we say God is 'nothing' that is when we put him in a box or no box at all because it would mean that he does not exist. God is the only being who can cause existence out of non-existence and for him to be able to perform this operation he needs to exist.

I'm looking at 'nothing' as mere letters which don't hamper God's existence. Funny enough, I fully agree with the bolded. We agree therefore, that God's existence is non-contingent. He CANNOT 'not exist', agreed ?

striktlymi:
Note that non-existence here does not have an objective reality, just like 'nothing'.

True. I put it this way to Alfa Sletzer: 'Non-Existence and Existence exist'. He thought then went mad. I think Kieerkegaard put it differently: 'God is but doesn't exist'. He meant the same thing.

striktlymi:
The above I agree with...'nothing' is a relative term.

Yes.

striktlymi:
Not quite Uyi! We really do not treat 'absence of things' as things in themselves. This is where some of us get it wrong. We use things that do exist to depict or represent those that do not. This does not mean that we are treating 'nothing' as 'something'.

LOOQOOL !

Things that exist rep things that don't exist
Things that don't exist as if they exist

I think you can agree, by analyzing the above, we said the same thing differently.

striktlymi:
The human mind is such that it associates itself with whatever it can relate with. For instance, if we ask a blind man to describe what a nose looks like...the blind man can only tell us what he has been told. His mental image of a nose would be very different from what you and I have, though nose exist and is substantive.

I think it (the blind man's image of the nose) COULD bear similarities especially if he feels it.

striktlymi:
In order to help the human mind work with this notion of 'nothing' or non-existence, it is expedient that we use what we can relate with to depict it otherwise the term would make no sense to any of us.

Exactly. We infer nothing from gaps between objects.

striktlymi:
Lol!!! C'mon now Uyi, do you honestly believe that our thoughts are 'nothing'? When we think, there is brain activity and that in itself is 'something' and not 'nothing'. There is no activity, no matter how little, when we talk about 'nothing'.

LOL ! Funny enough, I said in the thread 'thehomer please say' that thoughts are just neurological functions. Okay lemme agree that thoughts are something. Why can we think of nothing ?

striktlymi:
I am trying to understand this but I think I get the picture.

That's good enough. We could flesh out the details if you want.

striktlymi:
Hmmm...if I infer what you mean in my confused state don't you think that I stand the risk of misrepresenting your words or thoughts, just like people misrepresent Sacred scriptures?

Yes. But it's an inevitable risk. Anybody's position can be misconstrued. God was mistaken for another by little Samuel. I for one think no matter how it can be misinterpreted one can find awesome insights in the Bible, or even any other book.

striktlymi:
Hmmm...if one is unconscious there is no demonstrable will. Fictional characters only demonstrate the will of their creators, hence they do not have wills of their own. God has a will because he is something, a sovereign and he exists

I agree COMPLETELY with the first statement. I'm ambivalent about the bolded. I agree with it looking at it from the creator's POV.
From the fictional character's POV it feels an element of free-will or determinism since it acts freely in fixed limits (say a Batman could use any one of his weapons to trap an enemy but the amount of weapons available is limited) I think your statement is interesting because it highlights the free-will determinism problem. I completely agree with the last statement.

striktlymi:
Good! Agreed! The above shows that a number of our body functions are entirely our responsibility e.g moving from point 'A' to point 'B' depends on us...the body won't do that on its own.

Okay. This squares out.

striktlymi:
Okay!

Fine. This one's been fleshed out.

striktlymi:

Welcome to the club! Thank God you are back now!

Yes o !

striktlymi: I assume I am still part of your BBM contacts; feel free to buzz me anytime you want to discuss an 'ish', though I might be a bit 'clumsy' there ...anyways, I agree that this present discourse is great here.

Indeed.

striktlymi: It depends on what you mean by destroy? It is known that matter cannot be created nor destroyed by any known human means. If we cannot destroy matter, how then can we destroy space?

I like that. You deconstructed the term destroy. If a paper tears a materialist could say it has destroyed but its pieces still exist. If we use fire to burn it and it is eaten up by fueling the fire does it still exist. A materialist will suggest the idea that it exists as particles. Sometimes the person could say it doesn't exist. But the idealist maintains that whatever he percieves or imagines exists.

striktlymi: The answer hence is that space cannot be destroyed in this sense but when we occupy a given space, it can be assumed to have been 'destroyed' safe for the fact that the space pops right up again when we remove the 'obstacles'.

Ergo, destroy is a concept, an immaterial concept.

As I asserted earlier,

God as space perforce effects matter.

Evening Guy,

Sorry I took this much time...I have been a bit busy....now let's see what thou have here...

Uyi Iredia:

Hmmm.

'It is in striktlymi's interest to conceal a matter
It is in Uyi's interest to find out the matter"

Uyi Iredia:
Even right after skimming your reply I felt we are agreeing on the main points. That God necessarily exists bit fighting on how his/its existence is connected to all reality.

Okay, if you say so boss!

Uyi Iredia:
Space meaning nothing cuts it for me. I think like Einstein did you assume space has material properties that make our universe operate the way it does.

@Bold: If that works for you, I have no ish with it.

@Red: Hmmm....not necessarily, though I have no reason to believe that the 'material properties' of space is not a possibility.

Uyi Iredia:
Agreed. Nothing is inferred. Indeed we don't and can't percieve nothing. We infer it by reason. This is what Kant meant when he said space (which I take to mean nothing) is an intuition of the mind.


Agreed.

Cool!

Uyi Iredia:
I'll be very explicit here. God is both physical and non-physical Humans are physical with non-physical (thoughts).

The human bit is cool but that of God is a bit fuzzy at the moment. When you say God is physical, are you saying that God is material and is subject to the laws of nature? Or that he can become physical if he wants to?

Uyi Iredia:
To help you absorb this consider this: numbers are both finite and infinite. Numbers are finite because we can choose a large or small number. Numbers are infinite because there is NO NUMBER greater than all others

Hmmmm...choosing a number really does not make numbers finite, though I understand your angle. A set of numbers can be finite if defined appropriately e.g a ∈ N : 0 < a ≤ 10, where N is the set of natural numbers i.e 0,1,2,3....and 'a' is defined as a member or an element of that set.

That would be a finite set of numbers because the members of that set would be 'A' such that A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}. Now if we apply this thought process to God, it would mean that God has some limitations which you pointed out to be the material components of God; but I do not agree with this because God is not necessarily limited to anything physical.

Uyi Iredia:
Agreed.

As I said below. Rephrasing what you meant, pre-existence is a world with no matter. @ bolded: Gbam ! That's why I say nothing perforce can effect matter. Why because is simply consciousness not yet revealed. People do this intuitively by entering deep, dreamless sleeps and waking up from it.

Lol!!! Pre-existence is a world with no matter? You sure do have a 'wild' imagination. I, like you, have given this some thought in the past but the question here is: does such world exist? My answer would be: I don't know!

If we assume that this 'pre-existent world' exist then you are saying that God used items which are non-matter from this 'world' to create the physical world we find ourselves...I don't think this is likely.

There are a number of implications for this world of pre-existence...first, we will necessarily be saying that humans have no beginning, strictly speaking because then like the number system...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...we would be able to trace our existence to an infinity of negatives when we go back to before we were born. I don't think this is the case.

Uyi Iredia:
Why not ? I think it does has a reality because we can THINK OF it.
Why you say it isn't real is because 'nothing' gives the impression of a world without matter.

A world without matter would effectively define 'space' but not 'nothing'. 'Space' is something and hence a world of 'nothing' would be a world without 'space'. Do you think there is a world without 'space?

Uyi Iredia:
That's it. That's why I said the immaterial perforce gives rise to the material. After you said non-existence you defined it as . . . Thank you ! what was. Was is a participle that denotes existence.

Lol!!! My usage of 'was' here should not be mistaken for a prior existence. It is meant to depict a situation where we were non-existent before we became existent.

Uyi Iredia:
LOOOL !

This reminds me of when DeepSight tried to use numbers to defend God. In "Proving God Using Empirical Reasoning" He started with 0 + 0 = 0 and argued that it means nothing can't come from nothing. He then said 0 + 1 = 1 showed that something was needed for the everything to exist. A Christian had countered that 0=1 (which he felt DS was doing) had been debunked. After DS had propounded his thesis atheists asked where he got his 1 from and why one can't assume that 1=1 and the universe is eternal. I think even mazaje noted that DS argument implied 1=2. I noted a single FACT: thinking people propounding symbols, thinking people arguing over what these symbols mean, thinking people refusing to accept the MEANING of these symbols. To be candid I could equate it anyhow. I may resurrect that thread.

3 years after. We are arguing the symbols. 0 could be TAKEN TO be non-existence. But you FORGET it is only conscious, thinking things that can contemplate non-existence. Just the way an atheist could be said to BELIEVE he lacks a belief. Nuff said. I'll leave you to meditate on this.[/quote]

Hmmm...I reserve my comment to comment my reserve for later. It's cool if you want to resurrect it but I won't be part of a thread where 'the way forward' is only a distant memory.

Uyi Iredia:
I'm looking at 'nothing' as mere letters which don't hamper God's existence. Funny enough, I fully agree with the bolded. We agree therefore, that God's existence is non-contingent. He CANNOT 'not exist', agreed ?

Hmmmm...depends on your meaning of noncontingent. However, I do agree that God exist but not sure if he can decide not to exist.

Uyi Iredia:
True. I put it this way to Alfa Sletzer: 'Non-Existence and Existence exist'. He thought then went mad. I think Kieerkegaard put it differently: 'God is but doesn't exist'. He meant the same thing.

Hmmm...but if there is no objective reality for non-existence then it means that it does not exist.

Uyi Iredia:
Yes.

LOOQOOL !

Things that exist rep things that don't exist
Things that don't exist as if they exist

I think you can agree, by analyzing the above, we said the same thing differently.

Okay, if you say so!

Uyi Iredia:
I think it (the blind man's image of the nose) COULD bear similarities especially if he feels it.

The question would be: similar to what? Note that you are talking about similarities because you can see and identify things that the nose can be similar to...

Uyi Iredia:
Exactly. We infer nothing from gaps between objects.

But not that the gap or space is 'nothing'...saying that there is nothing in a space is different from saying that the space is in itself nothing...the gap you mentioned can be seen but the 'nothing' can't.

Uyi Iredia:
LOL ! Funny enough, I said in the thread 'thehomer please say' that thoughts are just neurological functions. Okay lemme agree that thoughts are something. Why can we think of nothing ?

Because humans like looking at the converse of everything...'white' implies 'black', 'Lie' implies 'truth', 'good' implies 'bad' etc but not everything truly has an existent converse.

Uyi Iredia:
That's good enough. We could flesh out the details if you want.

Cool!

Uyi Iredia:
Yes. But it's an inevitable risk. Anybody's position can be misconstrued. God was mistaken for another by little Samuel. I for one think no matter how it can be misinterpreted one can find awesome insights in the Bible, or even any other book.

True!

Uyi Iredia:
I agree COMPLETELY with the first statement. I'm ambivalent about the bolded. I agree with it looking at it from the creator's POV.
From the fictional character's POV it feels an element of free-will or determinism since it acts freely in fixed limits (say a Batman could use any one of his weapons to trap an enemy but the amount of weapons available is limited) I think your statement is interesting because it highlights the free-will determinism problem. I completely agree with the last statement.

@Bold: Hmmm...look at it this way...if the creator of the fictional character wants batman to kill the villain by drowning, would batman be able to say death by hanging is better? Or will the villain be able to escape the predetermined death by drowning? Or better still, outwit the creator and kill batman?

Uyi Iredia:
Okay. This squares out.


Fine. This one's been fleshed out.

Cool!

Uyi Iredia:

Yes o !



Indeed.



I like that. You deconstructed the term destroy. If a paper tears a materialist could say it has destroyed but its pieces still exist. If we use fire to burn it and it is eaten up by fueling the fire does it still exist. A materialist will suggest the idea that it exists as particles. Sometimes the person could say it doesn't exist. But the idealist maintains that whatever he percieves or imagines exists.



Ergo, destroy is a concept, an immaterial concept.

As I asserted earlier,

God as space perforce effects matter.

Okay!

striktlymi: Evening Guy,

Sorry I took this much time...I have been a bit busy....now let's see what thou have here...

Good Morning.

striktlymi:
@Bold: If that works for you, I have no ish with it.

Okay then.

striktlymi: @Red: Hmmm....not necessarily, though I have no reason to believe that the 'material properties' of space is not a possibility.

Same thoughts here.

striktlymi: The human bit is cool but that of God is a bit fuzzy at the moment. When you say God is physical, are you saying that God is material and is subject to the laws of nature? Or that he can become physical if he wants to?

Humans not God are subject to the laws of Nature. The laws of Nature are chosen by God when He becomes (as you asked) physical.

striktlymi: Hmmmm...choosing a number really does not make numbers finite, though I understand your angle. A set of numbers can be finite if defined appropriately e.g a ∈ N : 0 < a ≤ 10, where N is the set of natural numbers i.e 0,1,2,3....and 'a' is defined as a member or an element of that set.

I understand and agree with this.

striktlymi: That would be a finite set of numbers because the members of that set would be 'A' such that A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}. Now if we apply this thought process to God, it would mean that God has some limitations which you pointed out to be the material components of God; but I do not agree with this because God is not necessarily limited to anything physical.

I agree to. He is not necessarily limited to our world, but by choosing it to be this way, He put a limit on himself, albeit he be limitless. Example: A dad can flog a child, but by choosing not to, a limit is put.

striktlymi: Lol!!! Pre-existence is a world with no matter? You sure do have a 'wild' imagination. I, like you, have given this some thought in the past but the question here is: does such world exist? My answer would be: I don't know!

Lol. To some extent I do. I think we are not limited in our capacity to think. My answer would be God existed as conscious, immaterial energy not yet become matter.

striktlymi: If we assume that this 'pre-existent world' exist then you are saying that God used items which are non-matter from this 'world' to create the physical world we find ourselves...I don't think this is likely.

Why you don't think it likely is because you are contingent on matter. God isn't so he is not constrained in that manner. I think the verse about " . . . my ways are higher than your ways." puts the issue in the Biblical context.

striktlymi: There are a number of implications for this world of pre-existence...first, we will necessarily be saying that humans have no beginning, strictly speaking because then like the number system...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...we would be able to trace our existence to an infinity of negatives when we go back to before we were born. I don't think this is the case.

I could take either way. But I note that infinite regress always starts from human existence and assumes because of infinite regress that it (human existence) could not have arisen. For me, pre-existence or infinite regress is when only God existed but no material world, talkless of humans. The beginning of our universe was when he decided to make it. To help put things in context note that time is, in the end, a function of our consciousness. That's why when we're seriously engaged (as in when gaming or surfing) time flies and when bored or in extreme pain (it feels like forever).

striktlymi: A world without matter would effectively define 'space' but not 'nothing'. 'Space' is something and hence a world of 'nothing' would be a world without 'space'. Do you think there is a world without 'space?

No. There is no world without space.

striktlymi: Lol!!! My usage of 'was' here should not be mistaken for a prior existence. It is meant to depict a situation where we were non-existent before we became existent.

The highlighted mean the same. Or is that by was you just mean non-existence ?

striktlymi: Hmmm...I reserve my comment to comment my reserve for later. It's cool if you want to resurrect it but I won't be part of a thread where 'the way forward' is only a distant memory.

Okay.

striktlymi: Hmmmm...depends on your meaning of noncontingent. However, I do agree that God exist but not sure if he can decide not to exist.

He cannot 'not exist'. By non-contingent I mean God doesn't depend on anything for His existence. Living things are contingent because they depend on what He made (the physical world and their bodies) to exist.

striktlymi: Hmmm...but if there is no objective reality for non-existence then it means that it does not exist.

True. That's why I believe death is illusory. Especially simce we retain their memories.

striktlymi: Okay, if you say so!

Okay.

striktlymi: The question would be: similar to what? Note that you are talking about similarities because you can see and identify things that the nose can be similar to...

Similar to the human nose. Google 'blind artist from birth'. Please read this blind from birth artist.

striktlymi: But not that the gap or space is 'nothing'...saying that there is nothing in a space is different from saying that the space is in itself nothing...the gap you mentioned can be seen but the 'nothing' can't.

If by 'space in itself is nothing' you mean 'space doesn't exist' I agree.

striktlymi: Because humans like looking at the converse of everything...'white' implies 'black', 'Lie' implies 'truth', 'good' implies 'bad' etc but not everything truly has an existent converse.

Okay.

striktlymi: @Bold: Hmmm...look at it this way...if the creator of the fictional character wants batman to kill the villain by drowning, would batman be able to say death by hanging is better? Or will the villain be able to escape the predetermined death by drowning? Or better still, outwit the creator and kill batman?

I see your point the creation is completely subject to the creator. Thinking to God and man's relationship I think this way. God has determined all our fates. This he factored in when creating the world. So as not to make us robots, he gives us his capacity to determine our fates, we may make him more or less correct (like your father says you'll get 9/10 and you get 9.5) Hence, free-will in determination.

outc@st:

But the question is: Can't God kill himself if he wants to?

God cannot kill himself because such a possibility would mean that there is a higher power(death) greater than God himself and which god is subject to. Therefore God's claim to godhood would be a lie. But death itself is aspiring to be god and is demonstrated by it's power over all life except god. So death is power, it is aspiring(is a derivative) to be god or equal to god, but ultimately falls short.

bizmahn: I have noticed that this "okeyxyz" of a person carries a quality of "strange fire" that even makes atheists to marvel.

Yes, my doctrines are strange because they are not mainstream/popular. Infact anything mainstream should warn any honest christian that is very probably false and worldly. The bible explicitly spells this out that truth CANNOT be popular.

The same way satan marvels when men step beyond the bounds that satan himself will never dare to go to challenge God & boldly speak great swelling words to ridicle Him.

Whenever the devil marvels at the steps and ventures of a man, it means that man has transcended him(the devil) and moved on to Godhood.

outc@st:

But the question is: Can't God kill himself if he wants to?

Uyi Iredia:
It can and has, by not effectuating matter. This contradicts the notion that God can't die. But life and death are abstracts too. You can't point to life - only things that exhibit life. Neither can you point to death - only things that exhibit death. This suggests to me that what we note to be life and death are, per se, immaterial.

Consider this: Are you dead, when you fall into a deep, dreamless, unconscious sleep or alive when you, as a child, without consciously knowing it, take your first baby steps ?

Good cannot die.

Life and death are not abstracts. They are concrete, observable events, with starting and completion points. They are events and states. You can observe when a being starts to die and when it's death is complete. This is not abstract.

Whether deep sleep, unconsciousness or coma, they are still life persisting, their material integrity is still intact. We know what happens at death in that the organism ceases to function and it's material integrity is permanently lost as evidenced by decay.

okeyxyz:

Good cannot die.

Agreed.

okeyxyz:
Life and death are not abstracts. They are concrete, observable events, with starting and completion points. They are events and states. You can observe when a being starts to die and when it's death is complete. This is not abstract.

You are playing the realist. Life and death can't be seen, smelt, tasted, touched and heard. Only the bodies that exhibit life.

okeyxyz:
Whether deep sleep, unconsciousness or coma, they are still life persisting, their material integrity is still intact. We know what happens at death in that the organism ceases to function and it's material integrity is permanently lost as evidenced by decay.

I think you know dry bones may rise again. What you call death, I understand to be switching planes of existence. If the dead indeed do not exist, how do we think of them.

Uyi Iredia:
You are playing the realist. Life and death can't be seen, smelt, tasted, touched and heard. Only the bodies that exhibit life.

I think you know dry bones may rise again. What you call death, I understand to be switching planes of existence. If the dead indeed do not exist, how do we think of them.

If life and death can't be observed, then how do you know one being is dead and the other alive? Is it by observation or we are just imagining life and death?? You contradict yourself when you say bodies exhibit life. In other words: they manifest(exhibit) life, that we observe (this exhibition of life) and thereby conclude that life is present.

Dry bones rising again does not nullify the truth and fact of death. It is simply a conquering or averting of death by the worthy, rather than proving the non-existence of it.

Morning Uyi,

Uyi Iredia:

Good Morning.

Okay then.

Same thoughts here.


Humans not God are subject to the laws of Nature. The laws of Nature are chosen by God when He becomes (as you asked) physical.

I understand and agree with this.

I agree to. He is not necessarily limited to our world, but by choosing it to be this way, He put a limit on himself, albeit he be limitless. Example: A dad can flog a child, but by choosing not to, a limit is put.


Lol. To some extent I do. I think we are not limited in our capacity to think. My answer would be God existed as conscious, immaterial energy not yet become matter.


Why you don't think it likely is because you are contingent on matter. God isn't so he is not constrained in that manner. I think the verse about " . . . my ways are higher than your ways." puts the issue in the Biblical context.

The above I believe are in order.

Uyi Iredia:
I could take either way. But I note that infinite regress always starts from human existence and assumes because of infinite regress that it (human existence) could not have arisen. For me, pre-existence or infinite regress is when only God existed but no material world, talkless of humans. The beginning of our universe was when he decided to make it. To help put things in context note that time is, in the end, a function of our consciousness. That's why when we're seriously engaged (as in when gaming or surfing) time flies and when bored or in extreme pain (it feels like forever).

Hmmm...the above would mean that our origin started from when we began to exist and not pre-existent times?

Uyi Iredia:
No. There is no world without space.

Does this imply that the world of 'nothing' could likely not be in existence? Now check out the argument below:


There is no world without space....

'Space' in itself is something...

Everything implies something and hence space can be attributed to it...

'Nothing' is not something, hence it has no attribute of space...

Therefore, there is no world of 'nothing'...

Uyi Iredia:
The highlighted mean the same. Or is that by was you just mean non-existence ?

You can say so...

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.



He cannot 'not exist'. By non-contingent I mean God doesn't depend on anything for His existence. Living things are contingent because they depend on what He made (the physical world and their bodies) to exist.

Okay!

Uyi Iredia:
True. That's why I believe death is illusory. Especially simce we retain their memories.

Death is an illusion?....Hmmmm...

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.



Similar to the human nose. Google 'blind artist from birth'. Please read this blind from birth artist.

The case of Esref is an exceptional one truly but still he can't relate with his paintings the way we do. All he knows is that he got the outlines correctly and I bet that he was tutored on colours...there is no way he can tell a colour by touch if not tutored...this would be an impossibility unless we bring the God factor into it.

Uyi Iredia:
If by 'space in itself is nothing' you mean 'space doesn't exist' I agree.

Nah men...I was trying to bring out the difference between two phrases...space does exist!

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.


I see your point the creation is completely subject to the creator. Thinking to God and man's relationship I think this way. God has determined all our fates. This he factored in when creating the world. So as not to make us robots, he gives us his capacity to determine our fates, we may make him more or less correct (like your father says you'll get 9/10 and you get 9.5) Hence, free-will in determination.

The bold contradicts...it's either God determines our faith or he doesn't.

okeyxyz:

God cannot kill himself because such a possibility would mean that there is a higher power(death) greater than God himself and which god is subject to. Therefore God's claim to godhood would be a lie. But death itself is aspiring to be god and is demonstrated by it's power over all life except god. So death is power, it is aspiring(is a derivative) to be god or equal to god, but ultimately falls short.

Hmmmm....

striktlymi: Morning Uyi,

Good afternoon, striktlymi

striktlymi: The above I believe are in order.

Okay.

striktlymi: Hmmm...the above would mean that our origin started from when we began to exist and not pre-existent times?

Yes.

striktlymi: Does this imply that the world of 'nothing' could likely not be in existence? Now check out the argument below:


There is no world without space....

'Space' in itself is something...

Everything implies something and hence space can be attributed to it...

'Nothing' is not something, hence it has no attribute of space...

Therefore, there is no world of 'nothing'...

Agreed. I meant the same thing but presented it differently.

striktlymi: You can say so...

Okay.

striktlymi: Death is an illusion?....Hmmmm...

That could be argued for. However, let me clarify what I meant
with an example . . .

Before 1990 there was no Iredia
Dec 28, 1990 Iredia was born as a baby boy
Between Dec 28, 1990 and April 2, 2050 there was Iredia
May 3, 2050 Iredia
After 2050 there will be no Iredia

If truly, death existed, would I ever have existed at all.

striktlymi: The case of Esref is an exceptional one truly but still he can't relate with his paintings the way we do. All he knows is that he got the outlines correctly and I bet that he was tutored on colours...there is no way he can tell a colour by touch if not tutored...this would be an impossibility unless we bring the God factor into it.

I think he does. Neuroscientists studying his brain patterns when painting noted that it was similar to the brain patterns of a seeing person. His visual cortex was active.

striktlymi: Nah men...I was trying to bring out the difference between two phrases...space does exist!

Okay. By the phrase 'space doesn't exist' I meant 'no space doesn't exist'.
You see I sometimes interchange the terms 'no space', 'nothing', 'non-existence' and 'space'.

striktlymi: The bold contradicts...it's either God determines our faith or he doesn't.

It doesn't. Our ability to have faith is from God. The use of that faith is of our choosing.

Uyi Iredia:

Good afternoon, striktlymi




Okay.





Yes.



Agreed. I meant the same thing but presented it differently.




Okay.






That could be argued for. However, let me clarify what I meant
with an example . . .

Before 1990 there was no Iredia
Dec 28, 1990 Iredia was born as a baby boy
Between Dec 28, 1990 and April 2, 2050 there was Iredia
May 3, 2050 Iredia
After 2050 there will be no Iredia

If truly, death existed, would I ever have existed at all.



I think he does. Neuroscientists studying his brain patterns when painting noted that it was similar to the brain patterns of a seeing person. His visual cortex was active.



Okay. By the phrase 'space doesn't exist' I meant 'no space doesn't exist'.
You see I sometimes interchange the terms 'no space', 'nothing', 'non-existence' and 'space'.




It doesn't. Our ability to have faith is from God. The use of that faith is of our choosing.

Uyi Iredia:

Good afternoon, striktlymi


Okay.


Yes.



Agreed. I meant the same thing but presented it differently.


Okay.

Cool!

Uyi Iredia:
That could be argued for. However, let me clarify what I meant
with an example . . .

Before 1990 there was no Iredia
Dec 28, 1990 Iredia was born as a baby boy
Between Dec 28, 1990 and April 2, 2050 there was Iredia
May 3, 2050 Iredia
After 2050 there will be no Iredia

If truly, death existed, would I ever have existed at all.

Still a bit fuzzy....the full cycle of life...birth===>Live life===>Death...as depicted in your analogy seem to be in order but I don't understand how it relates to the existence or nonexistence of death...mind clarifying please?

Uyi Iredia:
I think he does. Neuroscientists studying his brain patterns when painting noted that it was similar to the brain patterns of a seeing person. His visual cortex was active.

It is not out of the ordinary for the visual cortex of blind persons to be active...as a matter of fact the visual cortex in blind people help improve their hearing ability.

This really does not exactly explain why our blind friend was able to identify colours. Like I said, it's either he was taught some of the basics or he had help from God....unless you have some other explanation.

Uyi Iredia:
Okay. By the phrase 'space doesn't exist' I meant 'no space doesn't exist'.
You see I sometimes interchange the terms 'no space', 'nothing', 'non-existence' and 'space'.

Okay, cool!

Uyi Iredia:
It doesn't. Our ability to have faith is from God. The use of that faith is of our choosing.

Sorry I meant to say fate and not faith...God does not determine our fate.

Thanks, I would love we flesh out the issues, then look at points and counter-points to God's omnipotence.

striktlymi:

Still a bit fuzzy....the full cycle of life...birth===>Live life===>Death...as depicted in your analogy seem to be in order but I don't understand how it relates to the existence or nonexistence of death...mind clarifying please?

To the extent there are decomposed bodies of people, there is death. To the extent we refer to people despite their decomposed bodies, death is illusory. To the extent people refer to a self (despite bodily changes as toddlers, teens, youths and old age) death is made even more illusory.

striktlymi:
It is not out of the ordinary for the visual cortex of blind persons to be active...as a matter of fact the visual cortex in blind people help improve their hearing ability.

This really does not exactly explain why our blind friend was able to identify colours. Like I said, it's either he was taught some of the basics or he had help from God....unless you have some other explanation.

I don't. I'll check to confirm how he got to identify colors. Indeed, I think he'll need help on that.

striktlymi:
Sorry I meant to say fate and not faith...God does not determine our fate.

To some extent He has, by determining how the human body and the physical world works.

Uyi Iredia: Thanks, I would love we flesh out the issues, then look at points and counter-points to God's omnipotence.

No P! Whenever you are ready.

Uyi Iredia:
To the extent there are decomposed bodies of people, there is death. To the extent we refer to people despite their decomposed bodies, death is illusory. To the extent people refer to a self (despite bodily changes as toddlers, teens, youths and old age) death is made even more illusory.

Now this is what I believe in...death, as far as humans are concerned, is only applicable to the body i.e. the flesh. The individual or person as depicted by the spirit lives on.

This individual does not change irrespective of time...the individual starts off in the stomach of the mum at conception and grows to be born and become a 'man'..despite bodily changes and advancement the person does not change.

The only difference would be that this individual acquires various experiences at each stage of development. These experiences are acquired whether consciously as a man or unconsciously in the womb and as a 'child'.

These experiences culminate in the death of the mortal man i.e the flesh but the person at that point gets the ultimate experience which is either seeing his maker or be forever damned not to see him.

This might be a weird belief but it's my belief all the same Now I don't know if what I have enumerated fits into what you mean when you say death is an illusion.

Uyi Iredia:
I don't. I'll check to confirm how he got to identify colors. Indeed, I think he'll need help on that.

Okay, cool! Feel free to let me know the outcome of your research.

Uyi Iredia:
To some extent He has, by determining how the human body and the physical world works.

I will agree with this if by the bold, you mean that God has given us the tools to achieve whatever is within our means.

striktlymi:

No P! Whenever you are ready.

Okay

striktlymi:
Now this is what I believe in...death, as far as humans are concerned, is only applicable to the body i.e. the flesh. The individual or person as depicted by the spirit lives on.

Precisely.

striktlymi:
This individual does not change irrespective of time...the individual starts off in the stomach of the mum at conception and grows to be born and become a 'man'..despite bodily changes and advancement the person does not change.

Agreed.

striktlymi:
The only difference would be that this individual acquires various experiences at each stage of development. These experiences are acquired whether consciously as a man or unconsciously in the womb and as a 'child'.

Agreed. The ability to think and consciousness remains the same. Thoughts you agree on or differ to may change. What I note though,
is that there is a constant 'me' or 'spirit' that decides, feels, contemplates, dreams etc. I suppose you'll agree with this.

striktlymi:
These experiences culminate in the death of the mortal man i.e the flesh but the person at that point gets the ultimate experience which is either seeing his maker or be forever damned not to see him.

That's why I infer an illusion of death. I will reserve my thoughts on the bolded, especially since it is part reason why I've shunned Christianity - for now.

striktlymi:
This might be a weird belief but it's my belief all the same Now I don't know if what I have enumerated fits into what you mean when you say death is an illusion.

I do not think it's weird. It fits because I believe our bodies to be the work of an intelligent, purposeful maker (God) and at what humans call death there is a rendezvous with the Creator. As you put it, the spirit leaves the body.

striktlymi:
Okay, cool! Feel free to let me know the outcome of your research.

Okay.

striktlymi:
I will agree with this if by the bold, you mean that God has given us the tools to achieve whatever is within our means.

Yes. That's what I meant. Funny though, we have on multiple occasions here meant the same thing but used different words.

Uyi Iredia:

Okay


Precisely.


Agreed.


Agreed. The ability to think and consciousness remains the same. Thoughts you agree on or differ to may change. What I note though,
is that there is a constant 'me' or 'spirit' that decides, feels, contemplates, dreams etc. I suppose you'll agree with this.

I can agree with the above but when you say 'feel', do you mean the spirit has the ability to feel? Is this not a function of our mortal self? On the other hand, if the spirit leaves the body there can be no feeling...in this sense I agree.

Uyi Iredia: That's why I infer an illusion of death. I will reserve my thoughts on the bolded, especially since it is part reason why I've shunned Christianity - for now.

Cool, if you want it that way

Uyi Iredia: I do not think it's weird. It fits because I believe our bodies to be the work of an intelligent, purposeful maker (God) and at what humans call death there is a rendezvous with the Creator. As you put it, the spirit leaves the body.

Cool!

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.


Yes. That's what I meant. Funny though, we have on multiple occasions here meant the same thing but used different words.

Yea..funny

striktlymi:

I can agree with the above but when you say 'feel', do you mean the spirit has the ability to feel? Is this not a function of our mortal self? On the other hand, if the spirit leaves the body there can be no feeling...in this sense I agree.

Actually by feeling I meant emotion. But why don't you think 'spirit' lacks tactile impression ? I think it does, especially if it has other senses (like sight) functioning.

Uyi Iredia:

Actually by feeling I meant emotion. But why don't you think 'spirit' lacks tactile impression ? I think it does, especially if it has other senses (like sight) functioning.

After some thought, I have to agree to the extent that spirits can demonstrate some emotions like, being happy, sad, pain etc but I don't think they do it exactly as it is done by the flesh.

striktlymi:

After some thought, I have to agree to the extent that spirits can demonstrate some emotions like, being happy, sad, pain etc but I don't think they do it exactly as it is done by the flesh.

How do they do it? Do you think they laugh from their ass?

"His spirit goes out, he returned to his earth; in that very day his thoughts do perish." (Psalm 146:4).


"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7).


"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." (Ecclesiastes 9:10).


"The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence." (Psalm 115:17).

Understanding Sacred scriptures is very key....

truthislight: "His spirit goes out, he returned to his earth; in that very day his thoughts do perish." (Psalm 146:4).

What returns to the Earth? The spirit or the flesh? The flesh was made from dust and it must return to the dust but the spirit was not made from dust and so it returns back to God as depicted in your own quote below:

truthislight:
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

truthislight:
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." (Ecclesiastes 9:10).


"The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence." (Psalm 115:17).

The above talks about what happens to the flesh, not the spirit. The spirit goes back to him who gave it.