To All The Atheists - Religion (14) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / To All The Atheists (15831 Views)
The Atheists Test / The Best Of The Atheists In Nairaland So Far / What Percentage Of The World's Population Does The Atheists Constitute? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (11) (12) (13) (14) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: To All The Atheists by Nobody: 5:56pm On Oct 12, 2012 |
wiegraf: Please see my post here about the definition of God. I think that it should settle the issue. And you ignore the issue, over simplifying it... What did you say the issue is again? hahahah, no What's the point of a question for which we can have no answer? If first cause exists, that does not necessarily mean it is eternal. That also does not mean time is subordinate to it... the rest falls What does it then mean with respect to the time question? Sophistry on steroids... What does it mean to be arbitrary? Halting an already poor argument Please excuse the question, but can you menstruate? Why? Or why not? |
| Re: To All The Atheists by wiegraf: 9:55pm On Oct 12, 2012 |
Taking your response here https://www.nairaland.com/1070216/atheism-lie-everybody-believes-god/2#12532302 Ihedinobi: @wiegraf These are at most third of the definitions there, and you highlighted them because they had to do with objects. As the vast majority of the answers refer to some personal god, you can see why I say why it's misleading to use the term 'God' to describe some inanimate objects/events. Regardless, they all do not describe what I would assume first cause would be like. They all use either supreme, deify, absolute, perfect, supernatural etc etc. First cause from my view would not be described with any of these adjectives/properties. If you need specifics, highlight any description and I'll show you why. One of your fellow xtians duped me, told me (well, insinuated) he prayed for my electricity, then they took light  I'm a little busy tonight, so I may not play as much as I'd like... |
| Re: To All The Atheists by wiegraf: 10:42pm On Oct 12, 2012 |
Ihedinobi:That first cause is probably made up of different ingredients, and all of them are less than perfect. There was only one football match, Chelski won, but there were 22 players, opposing managers etc involved in the match. Also, different goals scored at various points, spectators, etc etc. Sure only one championship team was decided at the end, but there were a lot of champions, staff, losers, goals etc involved. Ihedinobi:I think the problem here is you assume why means asking for a purpose, I don't. I'd say why is asking for a reason for the behavior, more like a 'how', it has nothing to do with a purpose per say. Ultimately, I do not think nature has purposes, at all (even us, especially if free will is an illusion). Ihedinobi:Hmmm, supposing you said time was subjected to it, God created time? Then there was no time before God? Think about that a bit, then what time was God created? Even with eternal thrown into the equations, it's hard to see how God created time, they must have existed simultaneously. Anyways, going back a bit Ihedinobi:Is exactly what I'm saying. It's a pre-programmed machine from inception. In fact, if it truly does not make any new thoughts, then it had to have been programmed by someone else. Think about it carefully. Programming its activities requires new thoughts, new information gathered, then new decision made and set. At some point, the regress must be stopped, and new comes into place. Once new is involved, bye bye omniscient. Then once it starts operations, it's bye bye free will. Ihedinobi:I think I've already explained that. Lets go back a bit here as well. God created arbitrary? Before God there was no arbitrary? Then how did God come to be arbitrary. Imagine a computer program learning to be arbitrary.... Ihedinobi:But that is precisely the point, again. I am not god, if I were I would have thought I would be able to menstruate if I so desired. If I cannot do that then I am certainly not omnipotent. Translate that to thoughts, free will, omniscience Overall this has become a bit convulted, not so sure where I am anymore as well.. |
| Re: To All The Atheists by Nobody: 6:45pm On Oct 13, 2012 |
wiegraf: These are at most third of the definitions there, and you highlighted them because they had to do with objects. As the vast majority of the answers refer to some personal god, you can see why I say why it's misleading to use the term 'God' to describe some inanimate objects/events. Regardless, they all do not describe what I would assume first cause would be like. They all use either supreme, deify, absolute, perfect, supernatural etc etc. First cause from my view would not be described with any of these adjectives/properties. If you need specifics, highlight any description and I'll show you why. lol, dude, this is what they call "grasping at straws".  I have proved that sentient or not, whatever one regards as first cause can rightly be called one's God.That first cause is probably made up of different ingredients, and all of them are less than perfect. There was only one football match, Chelski won, but there were 22 players, opposing managers etc involved in the match. Also, different goals scored at various points, spectators, etc etc. Sure only one championship team was decided at the end, but there were a lot of champions, staff, losers, goals etc involved. I'm not interested in what first cause is composed of in this discussion. My question is whether there can exist conflicting first causes. And you have said that there cannot. Do you want to change that stance now? I think the problem here is you assume why means asking for a purpose, I don't. I'd say why is asking for a reason for the behavior, more like a 'how', it has nothing to do with a purpose per say. Ultimately, I do not think nature has purposes, at all (even us, especially if free will is an illusion). Can you show that a query after reason is contrary to a query after purpose? Hmmm, supposing you said time was subjected to it, God created time? Then there was no time before God? Think about that a bit, then what time was God created? Even with eternal thrown into the equations, it's hard to see how God created time, they must have existed simultaneously. I do not believe that you do not see that the above makes no sense wholly and in details. Anyways, going back a bit Perhaps you're willfully misunderstanding, perhaps you're not. A truly free will does not operate choices. It is totally arbitrary, that means it does perfectly as it pleases. Therefore, it does not choose. It only decrees. I think I've already explained that. Lets go back a bit here as well. God created arbitrary? Before God there was no arbitrary? Then how did God come to be arbitrary. Imagine a computer program learning to be arbitrary.... lol.... This is worse nonsense than ever, if that's possible. What is arbitrary? But that is precisely the point, again. I am not god, if I were I would have thought I would be able to menstruate if I so desired. If I cannot do that then I am certainly not omnipotent. Translate that to thoughts, free will, omniscience The law of non-contradiction. Ever heard of it? That's what I tried to exemplify. Overall this has become a bit convulted, not so sure where I am anymore as well.. lol...... That happens when you stand on a bog. |
| Re: To All The Atheists by wiegraf: 7:53pm On Oct 13, 2012 |
Ihedinobi:You haven't, at all. Like I said, those descriptions do not just say sentient or not, they also say ultimate, supreme etc etc. They may solve sentience but they have other issues. Pick anyone and I'll show you how rather than trying to sidetrack the issue. Ihedinobi:Change my stance? Why? It's still the same. You can label all the bits collectively as first cause, but depending on your usage, that could be (very) wrong, simple. For instance say you want to measure the time it takes you to get from your house to work, you'd use newtonian physics and you'd be fine. Say you wanted to measure the time it would take you to get to the centre of the galaxy with you moving at much higher speeds, using newtonian physics would be silly and produce highly inaccurate results. Mostly because newtonian physics doesn't really explain what is happening accurately, it's a crude approximation. The same applies when you use the term 'first cause' collectively, and for the purposes I assume you want to use the term for you will get highly inaccurate results. Ihedinobi:I didn't say contrary, I say not necessarily. And I've shown how already a few times. Btw, is it so difficult for you to grasp that inanimate objects cannot have a purpose? Ihedinobi:  Did god create everything? Did god create numbers? Ihedinobi:This is, frankly, nonsense (and so is a lot of this post actually). It does perfectly as it pleases, therefore it does not choose. It does not choose the decree it intends to follow? It does not choose to do as it pleases? It does it without thinking, a being with free will that does not think? Wth are you on about? Or without making a choice, and you claim it has free will? What in the universe are you saying? Ihedinobi:See above. Switch arbitrary with whimsical, might help you get it. Or this http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=arbitrary&o=0&l=dir Note the word 'choice'. Google as many descriptions as you please... http://www.google.com/m?q=arbitrary&client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new Ihedinobi:Have you? You say a being can do anything, then immediately say it cannot do something. Again, wth Ihedinobi:If you say so. Your premises and understanding of the issues are poor though, so this is a bit of a waste of time. You need to think about what god did and did not create, and what he can and cannot do. As for the free will in particular.... Well |
| Re: To All The Atheists by Nobody: 8:29pm On Oct 13, 2012 |
wiegraf: I think this case is closed, don't you?  Change my stance? Why? It's still the same. You can label all the bits collectively as first cause, but depending on your usage, that could be (very) wrong, simple. For instance say you want to measure the time it takes you to get from your house to work, you'd use newtonian physics and you'd be fine. Say you wanted to measure the time it would take you to get to the centre of the galaxy with you moving at much higher speeds, using newtonian physics would be silly and produce highly inaccurate results. Mostly because newtonian physics doesn't really explain what is happening accurately, it's a crude approximation. The same applies when you use the term 'first cause' collectively, and for the purposes I assume you want to use the term for you will get highly inaccurate results. Please don't push me to go harvesting past posts. It's a real chore using my phone and if I have to do it, it might make upset me  and then I might upset you The question was whether there can be conflicting first causes, not whether there can be multiple first causes. I didn't say contrary, I say not necessarily. And I've shown how already a few times. Btw, is it so difficult for you to grasp that inanimate objects cannot have a purpose? If they're not contrary, then a query after reason is also a query after purpose. That is, they're interchangeable.
lol...... Awesome. In the light of this discussion, you might as well ask whether God created itself. I'd like to watch you try to prove that that is a valid question to ask. This is, frankly, nonsense (and so is a lot of this post actually). It does perfectly as it pleases, therefore it does not choose. It does not choose the decree it intends to follow? It does not choose to do as it pleases? It does it without thinking, a being with free will that does not think? Wth are you on about? Or without making a choice, and you claim it has free will? What in the universe are you saying? Wow Ok. I can work this still. You see the bolded? I pick it out as a sample of the mass of absurdity that post represents.Let's say that I am an utterly arbitrary being. What choices can I be said to be faced with? See above. Switch arbitrary with whimsical, might help you get it. Or this How about your own words? I'd prefer them. I did follow the links and I see nothing in them that supports your question. Have you? You say a being can do anything, then immediately say it cannot do something. Again, wth Well if what I say it cannot do is "to cannot do anything", am I wrong? If you say so. Your premises and understanding of the issues are poor though, so this is a bit of a waste of time. You need to think about what god did and did not create, and what he can and cannot do. As for the free will in particular.... Well lol......wiegraf, God could not have created God, whatever God is, ok? That's basic to reason and logic. |
| Re: To All The Atheists by wiegraf: 9:09pm On Oct 13, 2012 |
This is my last post on these issues with you probably, as you've shown very little understanding of the topic. Ihedinobi:Not in any way, shape or form. I've already said why, if you can't grasp it then.. Ihedinobi:What do you care if I get upset? Never worry about that My answer still stands for crying out loud, YES and NO. Present the scenario you want to use first cause in and we can then determine which usage is appropriate Ihedinobi:How in the world do you come to that conclusion? Blue is interchangeable with red? Ihedinobi:That is a valid question to ask!!! In fact, it's done all the time on this board, and the term 'self-existent' is thrown around. And it is similar to what I'm asking... Ihedinobi:You see, in case you missed it, that post's aim was to show just some of the illogic you've been selling, just some. NOT BEING FREE TO CHOOSE IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF NOT BEING ARBITRARY Ihedinobi:Really, first description on that page, the relevant one... BASED ON RANDOM CHOICE Note the word 'choice' Ihedinobi:What is this double negative (of sorts) here for? It is not what you have been saying. What you have claimed is that a being that has no choice is being arbitrary. Any sane person would ask what have you been smoking. What you are doing is more like saying it cannot do anything, then immediately claiming it does something. We've not even explored the fact that while initially making the first choices, it must have had new thoughts, hence it never was omniscient... Ihedinobi: It's too much. The whole point of this debate is to show you how illogical you are being, you know that? Astounding how one sided people see stuff. Logic applies itself subjectively? |
| Re: To All The Atheists by Nobody: 10:06pm On Oct 13, 2012 |
wiegraf: This is my last post on these issues with you probably, as you've shown very little understanding of the topic. Cool with me Not in any way, shape or form. I've already said why, if you can't grasp it then.. Self-evidence in our conversations so far. What do you care if I get upset? Never worry about that Either it is conflicting or it is not. Can't be both. How in the world do you come to that conclusion? Blue is interchangeable with red? Reason is born out of purpose. The sun shines. Why does the sun shine? At whom is the question directed? The sun? Absurd. If there is a reason the sun shines, it must necessarily be beyond the sun itself. When you get to the source of that reason, you get the purpose for the existence of the sun. If I created the sun, then my purpose for doing so is the reason it shines. That is a valid question to ask!!! In fact, it's done all the time on this board, and the term 'self-existent' is thrown around. And it is similar to what I'm asking... Totally invalid question. You see, in case you missed it, that post's aim was to show just some of the illogic you've been selling, just some. I'm sorry, but I changed that question. It didn't convey my thoughts correctly. The question I meant to ask and which I replaced this one with in an edition of that post is: what choices would I be said to be faced with if I was totally arbitrary in nature? Really, first description on that page, the relevant one... What is "random" choice? What is this double negative (of sorts) here for? It is not what you have been saying. What you have claimed is that a being that has no choice is being arbitrary. Any sane person would ask what have you been smoking. If I do entirely as I please, then I am not subordinate to choice in the same sense that you who are constrained by options are. I am utterly free to do anything I please and I cannot repent or change my mind because I am my own standard. I can never be wrong.
Allow me to encourage you. You might actually succeed at proving that I'm being illogical. Don't give up! |
| Re: To All The Atheists by Nobody: 5:51pm On Dec 19, 2012 |
Dudugirl01: Each time someone says there's no God, I wonder why someone would boldly claim there's no God! My question then is, how do you butress your point? I need answers, Are you not God yourself? Everything you see and feel is God. Any being that says he is a SUPREME God is only being manipulative,because every conscious being is God. The only difference is,some beings like yourself do not realise how unique and special they are. You are the best form of yourself and not even Jesus,YAhweh can be like you. Worshiping or praying to any entity is a waste of time and evidence of ignorance. |
(1) (2) (3) ... (11) (12) (13) (14) (Reply)
Sunday School Lessons: What Do You Gain To Share With Others? / 2022: Don't Listen To Prophets Of Doom, Prophet Abiara Tells Nigerians / Biblical Ways Of Developing Self-control
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 91 |