Mr_Anony:
lol, what does it mean to say that your life has meaning? Who or what gives your life meaning?

my life means something because i engage in activities i believe in.i dont need religion to give me that.for example,am watching arsenal vs man city with a bottle of star and a bowl of gizzard.thats the meaning of my life at this moment.later in the day i'd be on site to coordinate activities,that will be the meaning of my life by then

Delafruita:
my life means something because i engage in activities i believe in.i dont need religion to give me that.for example,am watching arsenal vs man city with a bottle of star and a bowl of gizzard.thats the meaning of my life at this moment.later in the day i'd be on site to coordinate activities,that will be the meaning of my life by then

I'm watching the same match with indomie and sardines.....this is the life! Epic

Delafruita:
my life means something because i engage in activities i believe in.i dont need religion to give me that.for example,am watching arsenal vs man city with a bottle of star and a bowl of gizzard.thats the meaning of my life at this moment.later in the day i'd be on site to coordinate activities,that will be the meaning of my life by then

lololol...........you know you didn't answer my question but hey if that's what you believe, then good for you.

Mr_Anony:
lololol...........you know you didn't answer my question but hey if that's what you believe, then good for you.

i answered your question.however,you have an answer thats palatable to you but that isnt the answer i have

MacDaddy01:

I'm watching the same match with indomie and sardines.....this is the life! Epic

lol

Mr_Anony:
And you know this how?

Clear cut miracles like the sun standing still, men walking on water, men causing a tree to dry up, healing of amputees, raising people from the dead etc. . .

lol, when you talk about a harmonized mind, you are really talking about one mind. A mind is not a measurable physical entity, therefore the only way we can infer multiple minds is if we observe conflict. In the absence of conflict, we have one mind.

One mind how?. . .Differnt indiciduals come with different ideas harmonize it and make it one around a particular purpose, your evidence to show that the universe was not as a result of many creators is what?. . .If humans can come around a particular purpose and create many magnificent things that are in order what stops many creators from doing same to the universe. . .

......perhaps you want to tell me exactly what kind of evidence you require, that will satisfy you.

Like a video evidence of Yahweh alone creating the universe. . .That is a concreate evidence. . .

Now, the evidence I percieve you are asking for is similar to the kind asked by the pharisees when they said "show us a sign". If God can create the entire universe, then surely, He can speak. .....but I know you won't accept this, neither will you accept it if I told you that God speaks to me so I'll ask you an equally unreasonable question.

Actually the bible says god used to address the ancient jews through public speech. . .he stays in the clouds and they could even build a tower to reach him before he got scared anc confused their languages, now we have space ships that have flown way above the mythical tower of babel and we still can't find any yahweh any where. . .How does god speak to you, does he speak to you the way you speak to another human being?. . .What was the last thing he told you?. . .

I hold that you are not capable of thought. Could you please provide scientific evidence that you can think about the color blue?

Let us play the reductionist game and see how far it gets us. I will only provide evidence for you that the God can speak in human language in the way you are asking if you can prove to me that you possess a mind. Show me measurable physical evidence of your mind.

Another dishonest escapist tactic. . . you know very well that this nonsense of yours won't fly with me, you brought up the mind argument i never did so deal with it. . .If you have an audio of your god's voice then prsent it so that we will know that your god speaks the human language or be prepared to be mocked and ridiculed when you keep making wild assertions with out providing any evidence for them. . .What can be asserted without evidence needs to be quickly dismissed without evidence. . .

mazaje:
Like a video evidence of Yahweh alone creating the universe. . .That is a concreate evidence. . .

Lol, video evidence of you thinking of the color blue will do.......thanks

Mr_Anony:
Lol, video evidence of you thinking of the color blue will do.......thanks

I am not making any assertion buy YOU are, so deal with it, you claim to know that the universe was created by on single entity, a clear cut evidence to show that you know what you are talking about will do. . .Present the clear cut evidence instead of running around biting your long tail. . .

ah ladies and gentlemen, are we still here debating the sun, moon and stars?
Have we nothing better to do on such a brilliant day as this?

Mr_Anony:
I don't think you followed that analogy to it's end. You are right to be skeptical about flying men because you have not experienced any. When you do experience one, and the man is subjected to you for testing and you find out from your tests that the man is not using any aids to fly, it would be right to accept that he can indeed fly. Healthy skepticism is doubting until you are satisfied and not doubting just for the sake of it.

In that particular instance, my skepticism would be borne out of my experience that men do not fly. But thats just an instance. The statement could be something I have absolutely no knowledge about. I may be hearing it for the first time. Do I believe just because some scientist comes to me and utters many exotic sounding words (whilst wearing a white coat and horn rimmed glasses) ?

I do not hold this. I emphasized on plausibility together with necessity and not plausibility on it's own.

Yeah I know. I just couldnt put the necessity into perspective. Maybe you could explain better. I think, depending on what is being discussed, necessity could be subjective.

You missed the point, it is irrelevant the shape of the rock. My point was that the attributes of Russell's rock must be such that they are necessary. Then he would be very believable until we can disprove him - either by providing something else that satisfies that necessity or by getting a telescope powerful enough to confirm that such a rock does not exist.

Again with the necessity.

I think the shape in the variation of the analogy (ie Russell's rock) is important because it is what makes the rock stand out from a generic one.
If you told me there was a rock in space, I shouldnt doubt you. Thats because I know about asteroids. Someone else not knowing these things may be inclined to doubt them. It would be expensive, but possible to give such a person a first hand experience.

However, when you assert the existence of a certain rock, shaped in a particular way (possibly with the lyrics of Michael Jackson's first hit engraved on its face) then that statement is either true or false. In this case, you are speaking of a specific rock which can be identified and distinguished from ordinary rocks. Whether I believe it or not wouldnt affect the truth or false value of the statement. And just because I cannot falsify it does not mean I should accept it as true.

In any case, in asserting that there was such a rock, if we kept dribbling on the issue, using subjective criteria to determine how and when the rock could be viewed, then we could make it impossible to falsify the statement.

There's no point speaking about a generic rock. There are rocks in space.

Good, your analogy is on point but then my point is that I would have no reason to doubt my mother's tribe without having knowledge revealed to me that she is indeed Ijaw. I must present this knowledge for scrutiny if I am ever going to accuse her of falsehood. Without this outside knowledge, Her claim may well be true from my point of veiw.

You may have no need to doubt, that is true. Your truth may be that she is Ijaw since you have no outside knowledge to the contrary. It however is your truth and not the truth. For many people in those days as you pointed out, the truth was that the earth was flat. Theres another truth now.

If you have ever had something you took absolutely for granted shown to be false, you would understand. (And no, I dont think I am adopted ).

However, your own truth doesnt overide the real truth which maybe that your mother is not of the tribe you believe her to be. In other words, the plausibility factor is high here, but does not guarantee the truth.

In fact, this brings to mind a point about objective and subjective morality, but thats a digression.

Yes. Again your analogy is apt but my point remains that for the child to question his origins, he must have assessed new information. It is based on this information that he may now question his origins. He cannot just wake up one morning and start claiming out of the blue that he is not yoruba. That's an unreasonable way to go about it as there will be no difference between him and another child who is indeed yoruba but is claiming urhobo.

Well, I would say that the most likely reason for him to question his origins would be if he discovered some new information.

But thats not my point really. In fact, my point is to the effect that he states he is Yoruba when he is infact Urhobo (though he doesnt even know this). In other words, he tells someone he is Yoruba, has a Yoruba name and speaks Yoruba fluently. He has no records of his parents, and so to all intents and purposes, he is Yoruba and that cannot be falsified. In reality though he is Urhobo. Thats the point.

lol, If wiegraf says that he does not know, then he must remain so. The moment he begins to say that something is untrue, then he must tell us how he knows what he claimed not to know.

Aha, but if he does not know, it doesnt stop him from disbelieving. Disbelieving isnt saying something is untrue.

lol, no it is not. You still have not show how a person can disbelieve something in a vacuum.

Much earlier I agreed that someone would have a reason for disagreeing.

jayriginal:
One can reject because one finds something absurd, one has what one feels to be a better answer, because the proposer has not put his proposal properly (which is not necessarily sufficient to negate the proposal) or for a variety of other reasons.

.....Anyway, thanks for being gracious and actually following my argument and responding to it's points appropriately without going on tangents or attacking strawmen.

My pleasure

Mr_Anony:
lol, if you say it that way, then it will also be fair to say it is a fact that people believe today that man cannot fly.


You have not yet demonstrated this.


lol, you need to read what i have been saying again and properly


I don't see how this relates to anything I am saying now.


Good, could you please demonstrate with logic how God can be objectively false because you haven't


Hogwash, you are rejecting my claims yes but you are not giving any reasons why. That is what I want to see.

.


Unless I'm missing something, you already have accepted it doesn't exist when you accepted an omnixxx being cannot exist. It's anony-god, the one that's all true with no false, that is all-loving, not omnibenevolent (even then your arguments failed miserably though). Abrahamic god is all omnixxx.
If you want to debate all the other silly contradictions, nonsense claims etc attributed to abrahamic god, the fairy tales in the holy books, find someone with even more time to waste than I do.

So, address my post now properly, ser. I will see you bleed, even another wharrgarbl will suffice.

mazaje:

I am not making any assertion buy YOU are, so deal with it, you claim to know that the universe was created by on single entity, a clear cut evidence to show that you know what you are talking about will do. . .Present the clear cut evidence instead of running around biting your long tail. . .

lol, so you are incapable of thought then.....

wiegraf: .


Unless I'm missing something, you already have accepted it doesn't exist when you accepted an omnixxx being cannot exist. It's anony-god, the one that's all true with no false, that is all-loving, not omnibenevolent (even then your arguments failed miserably though). Abrahamic god is all omnixxx.
If you want to debate all the other silly contradictions, nonsense claims etc attributed to abrahamic god, the fairy tales in the holy books, find someone with even more time to waste than I do.

So, address my post now properly, ser. I will see you bleed, even another wharrgarbl will suffice.

I don't know exactly what you want me to address. I can only tell you about the nature of God as He has revealed Himself to me. I cannot go beyond that.
You may start by asking a sincere and direct question.

davidylan: ah ladies and gentlemen, are we still here debating the sun, moon and stars?
Have we nothing better to do on such a brilliant day as this?

this is too polite.i had to check to be sure it was you.or you've got the flu?

jayriginal:

In that particular instance, my skepticism would be borne out of my experience that men do not fly. But thats just an instance. The statement could be something I have absolutely no knowledge about. I may be hearing it for the first time. Do I believe just because some scientist comes to me and utters many exotic sounding words (whilst wearing a white coat and horn rimmed glasses) ?



Yeah I know. I just couldnt put the necessity into perspective. Maybe you could explain better. I think, depending on what is being discussed, necessity could be subjective.


Again with the necessity.

I think the shape in the variation of the analogy (ie Russell's rock) is important because it is what makes the rock stand out from a generic one.
If you told me there was a rock in space, I shouldnt doubt you. Thats because I know about asteroids. Someone else not knowing these things may be inclined to doubt them. It would be expensive, but possible to give such a person a first hand experience.

However, when you assert the existence of a certain rock, shaped in a particular way (possibly with the lyrics of Michael Jackson's first hit engraved on its face) then that statement is either true or false. In this case, you are speaking of a specific rock which can be identified and distinguished from ordinary rocks. Whether I believe it or not wouldnt affect the truth or false value of the statement. And just because I cannot falsify it does not mean I should accept it as true.

In any case, in asserting that there was such a rock, if we kept dribbling on the issue, using subjective criteria to determine how and when the rock could be viewed, then we could make it impossible to falsify the statement.

There's no point speaking about a generic rock. There are rocks in space.


You may have no need to doubt, that is true. Your truth may be that she is Ijaw since you have no outside knowledge to the contrary. It however is your truth and not the truth. For many people in those days as you pointed out, the truth was that the earth was flat. Theres another truth now.

If you have ever had something you took absolutely for granted shown to be false, you would understand. (And no, I dont think I am adopted ).

However, your own truth doesnt overide the real truth which maybe that your mother is not of the tribe you believe her to be. In other words, the plausibility factor is high here, but does not guarantee the truth.

In fact, this brings to mind a point about objective and subjective morality, but thats a digression.


Well, I would say that the most likely reason for him to question his origins would be if he discovered some new information.

But thats not my point really. In fact, my point is to the effect that he states he is Yoruba when he is infact Urhobo (though he doesnt even know this). In other words, he tells someone he is Yoruba, has a Yoruba name and speaks Yoruba fluently. He has no records of his parents, and so to all intents and purposes, he is Yoruba and that cannot be falsified. In reality though he is Urhobo. Thats the point.



Aha, but if he does not know, it doesnt stop him from disbelieving. Disbelieving isnt saying something is untrue.


Much earlier I agreed that someone would have a reason for disagreeing.




My pleasure

lol nice, I notice that we are now dancing on opposite sides of the table.

There is a question which I find more interesting and will help us to make some sense of our discussion.

How does one know?

let's ponder this question and see how we go.

Mr_Anony:
Good, I read the whole of your post but I want to touch on something here which is: How does one know?
You said:

jayriginal:

The likelihood that a statement is correct is no reason to assert that it is indeed correct

But then also, neither is it reason to assert that it is incorrect.

I do not hold that if a man rejects A then he must accept the opposite of A. What I say is that a man cannot just reject A on it's own. he must provide his reason for rejecting A whether it be B,C,J or H.

And I agree with you on that. However, we are talking about disbelief and not rejection. Two different things (though both would have their reasons). Bear in mind the differences.

Now back to the question: how does one know?

Allow me to ask you the same question.

How do you know anything for sure? and How do you know that you know?

...I think we can come upon something interesting here.

Any knowledge would have to be objectively verifiable. The methodology clearly set out and it should be capable of replication (where applicable).
This guards against an individual making an assertion and urging the rest to take it on faith.

While not 100 percent foolproof, I think it is the best we can do.

By objectively verifiable, I mean using the 5 senses and in such a way that another (normal) person would reach the same conclusion using the same senses.

Delafruita:
this is too polite.i had to check to be sure it was you.or you've got the flu?

ah it really is me and i dont have the flu this time. Just amused to see those who claim God doesnt exist still parked here frothing in the mouth while the rest of us go on having independent lives.

Mr_Anony:
I don't know exactly what you want me to address. I can only tell you about the nature of God as He has revealed Himself to me. I cannot go beyond that.
You may start by asking a sincere and direct question.

What in the world does this mean?
Did you, or did you not accept that a fully omnixxx being does not exist?
You're accusing me of being dishonest? Wtf?

jayriginal:

And I agree with you on that. However, we are talking about disbelief and not rejection. Two different things (though both would have their reasons). Bear in mind the differences.



Any knowledge would have to be objectively verifiable. The methodology clearly set out and it should be capable of replication (where applicable).
This guards against an individual making an assertion and urging the rest to take it on faith.

While not 100 percent foolproof, I think it is the best we can do.

By objectively verifiable, I mean using the 5 senses and in such a way that another (normal) person would reach the same conclusion using the same senses.

Ok, all well and good, but let me point out something here. you are assuming that our 5 senses can not be deceived and also repeatability does not apply to all things e.g. "my mother is Ijaw" is not something that is subject to repeatability. Do you agree?

P/s: I have an answer which I would like to suggest but let us exhaust yours first.

Mr_Anony:
Ok, all well and good, but let me point out something here. you are assuming that our 5 senses can not be deceived and also repeatability does not apply to all things e.g. "my mother is Ijaw" is not something that is subject to repeatability. Do you agree?

P/s: I have an answer which I would like to suggest but let us exhaust yours first.

I'd like to see you try to repeat your mother being Ijaw

EDIT:
I have not assumed our 5 senses cannot be deceived.

Illusions attest to this.

wiegraf:

What in the world does this mean?
Did you, or did you not accept that a [b]fully omnixxx [/b]being does not exist?
You're accusing me of being dishonest? Wtf?

Lol, that's a loaded statement which suggests that if an entity does not have a particular characteristic, then it is somehow deficient.
I told you what God's nature is like. You are the one who is assuming that some characteristics you feel God should have automatically makes God deficient if he does not have them. That's like saying that color red is not fully blue.

jayriginal:

I'd like to see you try to repeat your mother being Ijaw

lol, my point exactly

EDIT:
I have not assumed our 5 senses cannot be deceived.

Illusions attest to this.

how can you possibly tell that you are in an illusion if you are part of the illusion?

Mr_Anony:
how can you possibly tell that you are in an illusion if you are part of the illusion?

I'd like you to rephrase this please. Seems I can interpret it in more than one way. Particularly the being "part of the illusion part".

jayriginal:

I'd like you to rephrase this please. Seems I can interpret it in more than one way. Particularly the being "part of the illusion part".

what ways do you interprete it? perhaps that'll help me know how to rephrase.

Mr_Anony:
what ways do you interprete it? perhaps that'll help me know how to rephrase.

Just rephrase please.

jayriginal:

Just rephrase please.

My friend, I don't want to shoot in the dark, you said you could read it more than one way, please tell. then I'll tell you if you indeed got what I was trying to say.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, I don't want to shoot in the dark, you said you could read it more than one way, please tell. then I'll tell you if you indeed got what I was trying to say.

Lets not start a merry go round here. Earlier on you asked me to clarify something and I did. Simply rephrase. It should make your meaning clearer. Biko.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, that's a loaded statement which suggests that if an entity does not have a particular characteristic, then it is somehow deficient.
I told you what God's nature is like. You are the one who is assuming that some characteristics you feel God should have automatically makes God deficient if he does not have them. That's like saying that color red is not fully blue.

Anony, and perhaps someone else can help me out here as I care about the technicalities of religions about as much as I do those of the zodiac, is the christian god claimed to be all of omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant?
I am not asking about your anony-god anony, I'm asking about the official version of abrahamic sky-tyrant

jayriginal:

Lets not start a merry go round here. Earlier on you asked me to clarify something and I did. Simply rephrase. It should make your meaning clearer. Biko.

Ok fine, how do you know for sure that your senses are giving you the right information? How can you know for sure that you are in a real world and not an illusion or in a dream someone somewhere is having? (e.g. as in the movie Matrix)

Is this clearer for you now?

Mr_Anony:
Ok fine, how do you know for sure that your senses are giving you the right information? How can you know for sure that you are in a real world and not an illusion or in a dream someone somewhere is having? (e.g. as in the movie Matrix)

Is this clearer for you now?

Thats better, thank you.

In a well crafted illusion it would probably be near impossible to know this fact . That would be the overall picture (ie that the reality is an illusion). However even in such an illusion, one may be able to perceive reality. That is to say that things still happen which can be verified by normal means within the illusion.

If I am a character in someone's dream, that person must have quite an imagination because the dream is very complex. I wake, I sleep, I touch, I feel and so do billions of others like me (within that same dream). We are born, we live and we die. This dream then, this illusion, is our reality. It has rules and we have habits.

As I said earlier, it would be near impossible for us to know we where actually in an illusion if we in one.
Personally, I have no reason whatsoever for thinking so.

jayriginal:

Thats better, thank you.

In a well crafted illusion it would probably be near impossible to know this fact . That would be the overall picture (ie that the reality is an illusion). However even in such an illusion, one may be able to perceive reality. That is to say that things still happen which can be verified by normal means within the illusion.

If I am a character in someone's dream, that person must have quite an imagination because the dream is very complex. I wake, I sleep, I touch, I feel and so do billions of others like me (within that same dream). We are born, we live and we die. This dream then, this illusion, is our reality. It has rules and we have habits.

As I said earlier, it would be near impossible for us to know we where actually in an illusion if we in one.
Personally, I have no reason whatsoever for thinking so.

Just so we don't go off track and start talking about illusions, the reason i raised that question was to show the inadequacy of our senses and perfection. The question still lingers over us: how do we know and how do we know that we know?

Anony, answer me...