Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,260 members, 7,780,572 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 04:42 PM

Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. (1331 Views)

The Religious Mind? / The Religious Symbolism Of The Twelve Days Of Christmas / Word Of Faith:what Is Faith? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (Reply) (Go Down)

Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 12:12pm On Feb 21, 2013
Faith according Heb 11 v 1 is the confident assurance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.

Now, striky, i wrote you a phrase you havent been able to refute, FAITH IS NOT MATH, MATH IS NOT FAITH. Science never believes in anything by faith but by math. Even though we don't see somethings yet, things like energy, protons, baryons etc, we can work them out, we can quantify them, so we believe they exist, untill we can observe otherwise.

(first premise)On the contrary, believe in God is never irrefutably quantifiable or is God observable. The only evidence for God has always been design, but design is not enough for a person to claim full right over a product, the claimer has to have full patent
over it that will serve as the EVIDENCE of ownership. The design we see in nature can be perfectly explained by evolution and as also by creation BUT Evolution has mathematical proves (the full patent), creation only has faith (claims).

(second premise)Since the definition of faith is CONFIDENCE ASSURANCE AND EVIDENCE, which is lacking in proving the existence of a God, Faith has therefore self-destruct, it has self-disproved the existence of any God. According to the definition of faith, there must be CONFIDENTLY ASSURED EVIDENCES, WHICH IS LACKING IN religion, Christianity. Therefore, i conclude that the definition of faith has helped disproved the existence of God, what do you think?

1 Like

Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 12:19pm On Feb 21, 2013
ooman: Faith according Heb 11 v 1 is the confident assurance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.

Now, striky, i wrote you a phrase you havent been able to refute, FAITH IS NOT MATH, MATH IS NOT FAITH. Science never believes in anything by faith but by math. Even though we don't see somethings yet, things like energy, protons, baryons etc, we can work them out, we can quantify them, so we believe they exist, untill we can observe otherwise.

(first premise)On the contrary, believe in God is never irrefutably quantifiable or is God observable. The only evidence for God has always been design, but design is not enough for a person to claim full right over a product, the claimer has to have full [b]patent
over it that will serve as the EVIDENCE of ownership. The design we see in nature can be perfectly explained by evolution and as also by creation BUT Evolution has mathematical proves (the full patent), creation only has faith (claims).

(second premise)Since the definition of faith is [b]CONFIDENCE ASSURANCE AND EVIDENCE, which is lacking in proving the existence of a God, Faith has therefore self-destruct, it has self-disproved the existence of any God. According to the definition of faith, there must be CONFIDENTLY ASSURED EVIDENCES, WHICH IS LACKING IN religion, Christianity. Therefore, i conclude that the definition of faith has helped disproved the existence of God, what do you think?


Sorry ooman didn't expect the thread this soon! I am at the hospital with a friend. Just for check up and to get some drugs. I will buzz u in about 30 mins to an hour.

Thanks!
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 12:27pm On Feb 21, 2013
ooman: Faith according Heb 11 v 1 is the confident assurance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.

Now, striky, i wrote you a phrase you havent been able to refute, FAITH IS NOT MATH, MATH IS NOT FAITH. Science never believes in anything by faith but by math. Even though we don't see somethings yet, things like energy, protons, baryons etc, we can work them out, we can quantify them, so we believe they exist, untill we can observe otherwise.

(first premise)On the contrary, believe in God is never irrefutably quantifiable or is God observable. The only evidence for God has always been design, but design is not enough for a person to claim full right over a product, the claimer has to have full [b]patent
over it that will serve as the EVIDENCE of ownership. The design we see in nature can be perfectly explained by evolution and as also by creation BUT Evolution has mathematical proves (the full patent), creation only has faith (claims).

(second premise)Since the definition of faith is [b]CONFIDENCE ASSURANCE AND EVIDENCE, which is lacking in proving the existence of a God, Faith has therefore self-destruct, it has self-disproved the existence of any God. According to the definition of faith, there must be CONFIDENTLY ASSURED EVIDENCES, WHICH IS LACKING IN religion, Christianity. Therefore, i conclude that the definition of faith has helped disproved the existence of God, what do you think?


Will be here soon! Almost there!

Thanks!
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by poopli: 12:40pm On Feb 21, 2013
this is one of the reasons i love ooman, his philosophies, keep up the good work, you are great

1 Like

Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 4:08pm On Feb 21, 2013
Good afternoon ooman,

Sorry it took me quite a while...like they say: 'better late than never!'.

ooman: Faith according Heb 11 v 1 is the confident assurance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.

#Saying okay with a pinch of salt! Other interpretations of that verse are:

Good news:
11 To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.


NIV:
11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.


ooman:
Now, striky, i wrote you a phrase you havent been able to refute, FAITH IS NOT MATH, MATH IS NOT FAITH.

There is really no need to refute the above. All I need do is show that the above still applies to those who hold the view that God does not exist. To hold this view is to believe in an assertion. An assertion that cannot be subjected to the scientific process is equally accepted based on faith i.e. the Theist have faith that God exist and the Atheist (for those who assert that there is no God) have faith that God does not exist.

Hence, the saying: "Faith is not Math and Math is not Faith" is true and can be applied to both those who believe in the existence of God and those who believe he does not exist. Refuting the comment does not even come to play cause like I have mentioned in a previous thread I believe that the comment is accurate.

ooman:
Science never believes in anything by faith but by math.

The above is true and I do not dispute it but however your assertion that God does not exist is not quantifiable and science has no party in it. It is simply your opinion and belief; or better still: it is your faith that God does not exist just like it is my faith that he does exist.

ooman:
Even though we don't see somethings yet, things like energy, protons, baryons etc, we can work them out, we can quantify them, so we believe they exist, untill we can observe otherwise.

Not quite! Energy cannot be quantified directly. We really do not 'know' much about it...the best science can do is to make do with relative measures...as a substantive thing, energy cannot be quantified in itself. We know it exist because of the 'observable universe'. Now, God like energy is best observed through his works in nature and really he is better experienced than proved...I believe he exists unless you or someone else can prove otherwise.

ooman:
(first premise)On the contrary, believe in God is never [b]irrefutably
quantifiable or is God observable.

Belief in God is refutable because God is not subject to the scientific process. Note that SCIENCE does not refute the existence of God, some human beings do and when they refute it, they do not make use of the scientific process...just like you won't accept the existence of God based on one's personal experience and faith, I do not expect you to want someone to accept your assertion that God does not exist based on your faith and lack of personal experience.

ooman:
The only evidence for God has always been design, but design is not enough for a person to claim full right over a product, the claimer has to have full patent[/b] over it that will serve as the EVIDENCE of ownership.


For me the argument of intelligent design is really not scientific. Yes it gives credence to a creator but still I am yet to see someone base this argument on the scientific process. Claiming a right of ownership over something is actually a human thing. We are so engrossed in the accumulation of wealth in whatever form they come. A creator is quite different from a maker. When a product is made, the maker would want to claim legal ownership because of the ability of another to make a similar product cause the materials used are readily available.

However, a creator causes 'things' to be from 'nothing'...there is no need to seek a patent cause his creation cannot be 'replicated' cause of the nonavailability of materials, hence there is no fear of duplicity. God is the creator and he is free to give whomever he wills the works of his 'hands'.

ooman:
The design we see in nature can be perfectly explained by evolution and as also by creation BUT Evolution has mathematical proves (the full patent), creation only has faith (claims).

Until better evidence comes, I am a fan of evolution but not in its entirety...I accept evolution to the extent that the scientific process can accommodate. Evolution does not explain perfectly the design we have in nature. Can you tell me how, when and why evolution started and back up your theory with scientific evidence? When I say evidence I mean facts and not theories.

ooman:
(second premise)Since the definition of faith is CONFIDENCE ASSURANCE AND EVIDENCE, which is lacking in proving the existence of a God, Faith has therefore self-destruct, it has self-disproved the existence of any God.

The above is not correct cause you missed what that passage of sacred scriptures was trying to pass across. The author never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. Evidence as used in that passage has nothing to do with proving something scientifically. It is rather meant to show that the Christian is meant to be steadfast in his or her beliefs even though he or she is yet to 'see'.

ooman:
According to the definition of faith, there must be CONFIDENTLY ASSURED EVIDENCES, WHICH IS LACKING IN religion, Christianity.

The above is your own interpretation and opinion! Every Christian is supposed to be assured and confident in his or her beliefs. Personal experience is key here! One's personal experience gives him or her the evidence required in being steadfast in the belief of God.

ooman:
Therefore, i conclude that the definition of faith has helped disproved the existence of God, what do you think?


The conclusion has to do with your own understanding of the definition of faith and not what the author had in mind.


Thank you!
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 5:11pm On Feb 21, 2013
striktlymi: Good afternoon ooman,

Sorry it took me quite a while...like they say: 'better late than never!'.



#Saying okay with a pinch of salt! Other interpretations of that verse are:

Good news:
11 To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.


NIV:
11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

I think that all the verses are saying the same thing in essence so that is a lame excuse

striktlymi: There is really no need to refute the above. All I need do is show that the above still applies to those who hold the view that God does not exist. To hold this view is to believe in an assertion. An assertion that cannot be subjected to the scientific process is equally accepted based on faith i.e. the Theist have faith that God exist and the Atheist (for those who assert that there is no God) have faith that God does not exist.

contrary to that, we dont have "faith" that God does not exist, we are certain that God does not exists, absence of proof is lack of proof in this case because God is a person with consciousness not a thing that must be spoken for always so that didnt work.

striktlymi: Hence, the saying: "Faith is not Math and Math is not Faith" is true and can be applied to both those who believe in the existence of God and those who believe he does not exist. Refuting the comment does not even come to play cause like I have mentioned in a previous thread I believe that the comment is accurate.

Faith not been Maths and the vice versa never applies to both atheists and theists, remember that it is because we lack the mathematical and philosophical evidence for God, that is why people become atheists in the first place. If there is by any chance that we can prove God like we can prove baryons exist, NO ONE WILL DOUBT GOD because we would have been able to quantify him in the least sense of quantification of an omnipresent God. I hope you understand that.


striktlymi: The above is true and I do not dispute it but however your assertion that God does not exist is not quantifiable and science has no party in it. It is simply your opinion and belief; or better still: it is your faith that God does not exist just like it is my faith that he does exist.

As i already written above, it is because we lack the mathematical and philosophical evidence for God, that is why people become atheists in the first place. If there is by any chance that we can prove God like we can prove baryons exist, NO ONE WILL DOUBT GOD because we would have been able to quantify him in the least sense of quantification of an omnipresent God. I hope you understand that.


striktlymi: Not quite! Energy cannot be quantified directly. We really do not 'know' much about it...the best science can do is to make do with relative measures...as a substantive thing, energy cannot be quantified in itself. We know it exist because of the 'observable universe'. Now, God like energy is best observed through his works in nature and really he is better experienced than proved...I believe he exists unless you or someone else can prove otherwise.

sorry but energy is quantifiable, that is why we have units for it, remember Joules, when we say 10 joules of energy was used in doing something, we mean that 10 joules of energy was expended. For example, biometric studies showed that
330KJ/hr (Kilo Joules of energy per hour) is used in writing, 500kj/hr in typing, 1200-1500 kj/hr in playing football, depending on how active the player is etc. Energy adsorbed or used is totally measurable, do not say that again or i might ask you to check into your chemistry textbook once again.

About experiencing God, believe me, i was a xtian, i thought i experienced God, i later understood it was a condition of self induced mild psychosis. Events of healing by pastors that looks like miracles are ecopsychosomatic reactions (a very recent area of study). There are no spiritual implications at all. Another prove against the existence of God is that nature lacks intelligent control, yet controls itself perfectly, this therefore proves that it also had an unintelligent beginning


striktlymi: Belief in God is refutable because God is not subject to the scientific process. Note that SCIENCE does not refute the existence of God, some human beings do and when they refute it, they do not make use of the scientific process...just like you won't accept the existence of God based on one's personal experience and faith, I do not expect you to want someone to accept your assertion that God does not exist based on your faith and lack of personal experience.

Actually, science refutes God. This is why a student who started learning as a christian later graduate to become an atheist in the first place, because science refutes God. There are so many things in the observable physical world that shows that God does not exist. Nature can only lack intelligent control when a God does not exist.
Remember that computers are infallible except faulty, that is the work of intelligence, nature however is fallible in its perfect pristine state, this is why we have mutations in unborn children. This disproves the existence of a creator intelligent God. It is not science that is refuting God actually, IT IS NATURE ITSELF.


striktlymi: For me the argument of intelligent design is really not scientific. Yes it gives credence to a creator but still I am yet to see someone base this argument on the scientific process. Claiming a right of ownership over something is actually a human thing. We are so engrossed in the accumulation of wealth in whatever form they come. A creator is quite different from a maker. When a product is made, the maker would want to claim legal ownership because of the ability of another to make a similar product cause the materials used are readily available.
However, a creator causes 'things' to be from 'nothing'...there is no need to seek a patent cause his creation cannot be 'replicated' cause of the nonavailability of materials, hence there is no fear of duplicity. God is the creator and he is free to give whomever he wills the works of his 'hands'.

I only used patent as an analogy, i never expected you to base on it, that is hair splitting.
You say a creator causes things to come from nothing, explain the nothing you mean. Do you mean a creator God has the ability to call something from absolute nothing? Then you will be contradicting the famous creationist saying that NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHINGS, EVERYTHING COMES FROM GOD. Mind you, if everything comes from God and if God is a conscious being, then everything has to be conscious, but in the world we observe today, consciousness is ONLY brought about by the right network of brain cells, any impairement causes the condition of insanity. THIS PROVES THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT SOME SPIRIT BUT ONLY THE RIGHT NETWORK OF CELLS. besides, if nothing comes from nothing, WHAT DID GOD COME FROM. You see that something must have come from nothing because in the quantum physics sense, there is really no "nothing". I say it is unconscious unintelligent energy, you say it is a conscious, intelligent God but what do we see in nature, UNCONSCIOUS, UNINTELLIGENT ENERGY, WHY? BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

striktlymi: Until better evidence comes, I am a fan of evolution but not in its entirety...I accept evolution to the extent that the scientific process can accommodate. Evolution does not explain perfectly the design we have in nature. Can you tell me how, when and why evolution started and back up your theory with scientific evidence? When I say evidence I mean facts and not theories.

Evolution explains perfectly the deisgn we have in nature. Have you read about quarks, there are 3 different types of quarks, the up quark with +2/3 charge, the down quark with-1/3 charge and the strange quark with -1/3 charge.
The proton is combination of two up quarks and one down quark giving a total of +1, the neutron consist of two down quarks and one up quark qiving a total of zero, other combination makes up the electron. This area is called particle physics. Now because the sub atomic particles are finite in the charges that made them up, they always combine in a definite proportion, if you are a chemistry student, you would remember the law of definite proportions, that a sample will always combine in the same ratio anywhere. Because of this specificity of subatomic particles, we have repetitive patterns in nature. WHAT WE HAVE IN NATURE ARE REPETITVE PATTERNS AND NEVER DESIGN, DESIGN IS A LAME MAN'S TERM.

striktlymi: Can you tell me how, when and why evolution started and back up your theory with scientific evidence? When I say evidence I mean facts and not theories.

Ok, to start with, am not a cosmologist so i will recommend, A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING BY KRAUSS for you to read to learn the evolution of the universe. The oldest fossil evidence of life appeared aound 3.2 billion years ago, very VERY simple cells existing separately and in colonies, this underwent mutations till it gets to us. This very simple cells must have evolved by chemical evolution, however, there is no standard evidence for this yet, only logical philosophy, once we have standard proofs for it, which researches are making progress on, we will be able to make life in the lab.
One living prove of evolution is man itself, yes us. We have balck, yellow, brown and white people. This differention is perfectly distributed into specific habitats, the black in the hottest areas of the tropics, the whites in the coldest areas of the temperate regions. Even though man evolved same time and same way, with the same color according to fossil evidences of Neanderthalensis( who's genome was drafted in 2010 for the records, habilis, erectus), we are now differentiating into different colors because we live in different environment. This is the theory of evolution in action, nothing more is more clear than this. And we are not just differentiating into colors, we are also differentiating morphologically, the whites have thin lips, we have thick lips, they have pointed nose, we have broad nose, they have wavy hair, we have wooly hair. This is evolution at work. This cannot be the work of your God, remember that God destroyed the world and saved only Noah, now, since God has already completed his work on the seventh day, how then are we, black people here. Did God get to work again? or did we evolve? The Bible never said God got to work again, so we must have evolved. That is the bible helping in proving evolution right even though evolution says whites came from blacks and the bible is implying that blacks came from white, it is still helping in proving evolution.



striktlymi: The above is not correct cause you missed what that passage of sacred scriptures was trying to pass across. The author never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. Evidence as used in that passage has nothing to do with proving something scientifically. It is rather meant to show that the Christian is meant to be steadfast in his or her beliefs even though he or she is yet to 'see'.


I understand quite well the author never set out to prove or disprove the eixtence of a God, he was only passing accross the word of God as inspired to him by the "Holy Spirit". Now I would be wrong if the Holy Spirit was wrong when he said the faith is the evidence of you believing in a God, yet the evidence is lacking. I think the message is quite philosophical and therefore worth considering. The verse wanted believers to feel they have the full evidence for their believe, and yet the evidence is lacking, you can't say that is wrong, except you are saying the bible is wrong. There is no other way to understand that.


striktlymi: The above is your own interpretation and opinion! Every Christian is supposed to be assured and confident in his or her beliefs. Personal experience is key here! One's personal experience gives him or her the evidence required in being steadfast in the belief of God.

Do you even grasp what confidently assured evidences means at all. Ok, there you are, wanting me to believe in God. The bible says, "without faith, you cannot please God" in another place it says "for a man to come to God, he must first believe that he exists", in other words I MUST FIRST HAVE FAITH before i can believe God, and faith is the confidently assured evidence of things i can't see, and these evidences are lacking. Do you understand? Now i am an atheist because the meaning of faith has made it impossible for me to believe in a God, because the concept of God lacks the confidently assured evidences required for non believers to believe in God. Do you understand?




striktlymi: The conclusion has to do with your own understanding of the definition of faith and not what the author had in mind.


Thank you!

My conclusions are based on the messages found in the bible.
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 10:14pm On Feb 21, 2013
I take a slightly different position which may cause philosophical purists some heartburn. I assert with confidence that "god" does not exist. Purists would take issue with my apparent assertion of a negative proof. That is not the case, however. I agree that a negative cannot be proven. The burden of proof is obviously and necessarily on the affirmative position - the one that claims that god does exist - rather than on those who failed to fall for it.. As yet, those making that rather extraordinary claim have yet to provide one single shred of objective, irrefutable evidence in support of their claim.
I arrive at my position from another direction. If I come to you and tell you that invisible beings are present in the room with us, but that I just made them up, you will still be unable to prove that they don't exist. And yet it will be obvious and factual that they do not exist. It will be quite clear that it is an invention and there is certainly no rational reason to "believe" it (and probably very good reasons not to).

1 Like

Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 10:22am On Feb 22, 2013
Good morning ooman,

ooman:

I think that all the verses are saying the same thing in essence so that is a lame excuse

I never gave you an excuse. I gave you alternative interpretations in order for you to attempt to understand the message the author was trying to relate. Apparently you still do not understand it. Not that I blame you though, even some christians find it hard to understand sacred scriptures.

ooman:
contrary to that, we dont have "faith" that God does not exist, we are certain that God does not exists, absence of proof is lack of proof in this case because God is a person with consciousness not a thing that must be spoken for always so that didnt work.

The bold would really make the scientist laugh! You assert that God does not exist with certainty when you do not have one shred of proof and you say that your thoughts are not based on faith?

Faith is synonymous with belief and as a matter of fact faith can be seen as any belief that is not backed up by proof. You hold the belief that God does not exist and for this very reason it is very appropriate to say that your assertion my dear friend is based on faith.


ooman:
Faith not been Maths and the vice versa never applies to both atheists and theists, remember that it is because we lack the mathematical and philosophical evidence for God, that is why people become atheists in the first place.

People become Atheists for many different reasons and not just because of the bold.

ooman:
If there is by any chance that we can prove God like we can prove baryons exist, NO ONE WILL DOUBT GOD because we would have been able to quantify him in the least sense of quantification of an omnipresent God. I hope you understand that.

I do understand the above and for the sincere Atheist I think its quite fair.

ooman:
sorry but energy is quantifiable, that is why we have units for it, remember Joules, when we say 10 joules of energy was used in doing something, we mean that 10 joules of energy was expended. For example, biometric studies showed that
330KJ/hr (Kilo Joules of energy per hour) is used in writing, 500kj/hr in typing, 1200-1500 kj/hr in playing football, depending on how active the player is etc. Energy adsorbed or used is totally measurable, do not say that again or i might ask you to check into your chemistry textbook once again.

It's understandable that you missed the point I raised. Energy is not directly observable...the measures you have given only reflect what have been observed indirectly in relation to Energy. I believe Richard Feynman (a theoretical physicist) puts this in proper perspective: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount.".

ooman:
About experiencing God, believe me, i was a xtian, i thought i experienced God, i later understood it was a condition of self induced mild psychosis. Events of healing by pastors that looks like miracles are ecopsychosomatic reactions (a very recent area of study). There are no spiritual implications at all. Another prove against the existence of God is that nature lacks intelligent control, yet controls itself perfectly, this therefore proves that it also had an unintelligent beginning

I am not one to run after or attribute everything to a miraculous work. Many of the so called miracles in Nigeria are very fraudulent. If I talk about experiencing God and you talk about the "Nigerian style" miracles then I guess you don't know what it means to experience God.


ooman:
Actually, science refutes God.

Really??...Okay here is your chance....below is an algorithm which summarizes the scientific process...use it and show that science refutes God.




ooman:
This is why a student who started learning as a christian later graduate to become an atheist in the first place, because science refutes God.

The above is a classic example of the fallacy of false cause.

ooman:
There are so[b] many things[/b] in the observable physical world that shows that God does not exist.

I will save you the trouble of mentioning the "many things". Just pick two of your best and explain.

ooman:
Nature can only lack intelligent control when a God does not exist.

The above is incorrect. Intelligent control is basically needed when one attempts to make some specific things. Man by nature does not have the ability to 'create' i.e the ability to cause something to be. We make do of the lesser alternative, which is to make something out of what has already been caused to be. Intelligent control is needed when we want to make some of the items produced follow some specific 'commands'.

But when a creator who causes things to be is required to create there is absolutely no need for any 'intelligent control' because what is 'created' is not made from another 'created' thing and a creator unlike a maker can cause his creatures to be self sustaining...the problem here is that while you want to attribute things possible/impossible to humans to the creator, I make no such assumptions.

ooman:
Remember that computers are infallible except faulty, that is the work of intelligence, nature however is fallible in its perfect pristine state, this is why we have mutations in unborn children. This disproves the existence of a creator intelligent God. It is not science that is refuting God actually, IT IS NATURE ITSELF.

WRONG!!!

Is there really an objective way to determine what is faulty? The act of something being faulty is rather subjective. What I might see as faulty might be working perfectly for you. Something is only faulty when it is not working as it was designed to. If a computer is designed to consider the operation:

(Start)===>(Get sum)===>(Average = Sum/2)===>(Output = average)===>(Stop)

but instead it performs the operation: (Start)===>(Get sum)===>(Average = Sum^2)===>(Output = average)===>(Stop)

then we can say the computer is faulty but note that the computer only performed the operation it was designed to carry out even though we see it as being faulty. In a similar vein the creator has so designed nature to be self sustaining such that there are laws inherent in mother nature and when these laws are tampered with the result is what is not meant to happen. The way nature acts or reacts does not mean that nature is faulty, she only acts in the way she was designed to.

Now, humans were designed to act free...we can choose to alter some of the cause of nature by some of our actions...this does not show that the design of man is faulty...it only shows that man is misusing the privileged granted to him by the creator and in the process his actions affects that of other creatures too. Mother nature follows some set rules put there by the creator and each time mother nature follows those rules it gives credence to the existence of the creator.


ooman:
I only used patent as an analogy, i never expected you to base on it, that is hair splitting.

Well it would be unfair for you to use something I can't respond to.

ooman:
You say a creator causes things to come from nothing, explain the nothing you mean.

Anything yet to be caused to be.

ooman:
Do you mean a creator God has the ability to call something from absolute nothing?

I mean whatever 'is' was caused by the creator.

ooman:
Then you will be contradicting the famous creationist saying that NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHINGS, EVERYTHING COMES FROM GOD.

Let them defend their argument and I will mine.

ooman:
Mind you, if everything comes from God and if God is a conscious being, then everything has to be conscious,

Having the ability of causing consciousness is not the same as making everything conscious. The creator can choose what becomes conscious and what does not. Man has the ability to walk and also can choose to make a robot walk like him but this does not mean that everything made by man must walk because man has the ability to walk. The above is just your own theory.

ooman:
but in the world we observe today, consciousness is ONLY brought about by the right network of brain cells, any impairement causes the condition of insanity. THIS PROVES THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT SOME SPIRIT BUT ONLY THE RIGHT NETWORK OF CELLS.

The subject of consciousness is something I would rather not go into but since it is on the table I will just have to talk a bit about it. I am of the opinion that consciousness is something humans are still trying to understand. We really do not yet understand it in its entirety. There are some questions that comes to mind after going through your analysis. If consciousness is only brought about by one's brain cells, why then can't we bring back a freshly dead body with 'working body functions' to life by just implanting a fresh brain into it?

ooman:
besides, if[b] nothing comes from nothing[/b], WHAT DID GOD COME FROM.

@'Bold: I don't believe I ever used that phrase. If I make heaven, I will surely remember to ask God where he came from. grin

ooman:
You see that something must have come from nothing because in the quantum physics sense, there is really no "nothing". I say it is unconscious unintelligent energy, you say it is a conscious, intelligent God but what do we see in nature, UNCONSCIOUS, UNINTELLIGENT ENERGY, WHY? BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Explain how it all began...don't start from what is being postulated already in evolution...Even evolution cannot tell us how it all began.

The bold is your opinion on the matter.


ooman:
Evolution explains perfectly the deisgn we have in nature. Have you read about quarks, there are 3 different types of quarks, the up quark with +2/3 charge, the down quark with-1/3 charge and the strange quark with -1/3 charge.
The proton is combination of two up quarks and one down quark giving a total of +1, the neutron consist of two down quarks and one up quark qiving a total of zero, other combination makes up the electron. This area is called particle physics. Now because the sub atomic particles are finite in the charges that made them up, they always combine in a definite proportion, if you are a chemistry student, you would remember the law of definite proportions, that a sample will always combine in the same ratio anywhere. Because of this specificity of subatomic particles, we have repetitive patterns in nature. WHAT WE HAVE IN NATURE ARE REPETITVE PATTERNS AND NEVER DESIGN, DESIGN IS A LAME MAN'S TERM.

I accept some explanations of evolution so no need for the above.


ooman:
Ok, [b]to start with, am not a cosmologist [/b]so i will recommend, A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING BY KRAUSS for you to read to learn the evolution of the universe. The oldest fossil evidence of life appeared aound 3.2 billion years ago, very VERY simple cells existing separately and in colonies, this underwent mutations till it gets to us. This very simple cells must have evolved by chemical evolution, however, there is no standard evidence for this yet, only logical philosophy, once we have standard proofs for it, which researches are making progress on, we will be able to make life in the lab.
One living prove of evolution is man itself, yes us. We have balck, yellow, brown and white people. This differention is perfectly distributed into specific habitats, the black in the hottest areas of the tropics, the whites in the coldest areas of the temperate regions. Even though man evolved same time and same way, with the same color according to fossil evidences of Neanderthalensis( who's genome was drafted in 2010 for the records, habilis, erectus), we are now differentiating into different colors because we live in different environment. This is the theory of evolution in action, nothing more is more clear than this. And we are not just differentiating into colors, we are also differentiating morphologically, the whites have thin lips, we have thick lips, they have pointed nose, we have broad nose, they have wavy hair, we have wooly hair. This is evolution at work. This cannot be the work of your God, remember that God destroyed the world and saved only Noah, now, since God has already completed his work on the seventh day, how then are we, black people here. Did God get to work again? or did we evolve? The Bible never said God got to work again, so we must have evolved. That is the bible helping in proving evolution right even though evolution says whites came from blacks and the bible is implying that blacks came from white, it is still helping in proving evolution.


@bold: No need to go into it then.


ooman:
I understand quite well the author never set out to prove or disprove the eixtence of a God, he was only passing accross the word of God as inspired to him by the "Holy Spirit". Now I would be wrong if the Holy Spirit was wrong when he said the faith is the evidence of you believing in a God, yet the evidence is lacking. I think the message is quite philosophical and therefore worth considering. The verse wanted believers to feel they have the full evidence for their believe, and yet the evidence is lacking, you can't say that is wrong, except you are saying the bible is wrong. There is no other way to understand that.


Evidence as used can imply being witnesses. I have had personal encounters with God which has gone a long way in strengthening my faith in him. Hence the faith I have constitute 'evidence' on a personal level. Evidence as you know it is not what the author tried to pass across. The above is really your own interpretation of the message.


ooman:
Do you even grasp what confidently assured evidences means at all. Ok, there you are, wanting me to believe in God.

You really are getting it very wrong. Personally I don't mind you being an atheist if in right conscience you believe that is the way for you. And frankly I don't want someone to become Christian when the individual is not convinced about Christianity. That conviction needs to be there and it only comes when one has had a personal experience with God. That is God's job not mine!

ooman:
The bible says, "without faith, you cannot please God" in another place it says "for a man to come to God, he must first believe that he exists", in other words I MUST FIRST HAVE FAITH before i can believe God, and faith is the confidently assured evidence of things i can't see, and these evidences are lacking. Do you understand? Now i am an atheist because the meaning of faith has made it impossible for me to believe in a God, because the concept of God lacks the confidently assured evidences required for non believers to believe in God. Do you understand?

I will advice you explain things you know something about. Interpretation of sacred scriptures is really not meant for everyone. I do understand all that you have put forth.

ooman:
My conclusions are based on the messages found in the bible.

If you say so!


Thanks!
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 11:03am On Feb 22, 2013
ooman: I take a slightly different position which may cause philosophical purists some heartburn. I assert with confidence that "god" does not exist. Purists would take issue with my apparent assertion of a negative proof. That is not the case, however. I agree that a negative cannot be proven. The burden of proof is obviously and necessarily on the affirmative position - the one that claims that god does exist - rather than on those who failed to fall for it.. As yet, those making that rather extraordinary claim have yet to provide one single shred of objective, irrefutable evidence in support of their claim.
I arrive at my position from another direction. If I come to you and tell you that invisible beings are present in the room with us, but that I just made them up, you will still be unable to prove that they don't exist. And yet it will be obvious and factual that they do not exist. It will be quite clear that it is an invention and there is certainly no rational reason to "believe" it (and probably very good reasons not to).

WRONG again!!!

One is only free from the burden of proof when he or she does not make an assertion of his or her own. Anyone who makes an assertion is bound by this 'burden' whether you choose to call it positive or negative assertions.

An atheist who refuses a belief is free from this burden cause the onus will be on the one who asserts to prove his or her position if he or she wants the Atheist to accept his or her claims.

But when an Atheist holds an assertion of his or her own then the burden of proof is on that Atheist also. There is no running away from this one.
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 11:03am On Feb 22, 2013
Delete pls! double posting!
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 12:52pm On Feb 22, 2013
striktlymi: Good morning ooman,



I never gave you an excuse. I gave you alternative interpretations in order for you to attempt to understand the message the author was trying to relate. Apparently you still do not understand it. Not that I blame you though, even some christians find it hard to understand sacred scriptures.

I always wonder why your "sacred scriptures" are hard to understand by those to whom it was sent

striktlymi: The bold would really make the scientist laugh! You assert that God does not exist with certainty when you do not have one shred of proof and you say that your thoughts are not based on faith?

Faith is synonymous with belief and as a matter of fact faith can be seen as any belief that is not backed up by proof. You hold the belief that God does not exist and for this very reason it is very appropriate to say that your assertion my dear friend is based on faith.

I agree that a negative cannot be proven. The burden of proof is obviously and necessarily on the affirmative position - the one that claims that god does exist - rather than on those who failed to fall for it

striktlymi: People become Atheists for many different reasons and not just because of the bold.

people become atheists only for lack of mathematical and philosophical evidence, people dont just become atheists, some say they lost their faith because of evil (philosophy), others because of science (maths)


striktlymi: It's understandable that you missed the point I raised. Energy is not directly observable...the measures you have given only reflect what have been observed indirectly in relation to Energy. I believe Richard Feynman (a theoretical physicist) puts this in proper perspective: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount.".

I never said energy is directly observable but measurable, there is a difference between the words, open your eyes and read well


striktlymi: I am not one to run after or attribute everything to a miraculous work. Many of the so called miracles in Nigeria are very fraudulent. If I talk about experiencing God and you talk about the "Nigerian style" miracles then I guess you don't know what it means to experience God.


i told you i thought i experienced God, its all farcical hallucinations


striktlymi: Really??...Okay here is your chance....below is an algorithm which summarizes the scientific process...use it and show that science refutes God.


accordin to your chart, which is nothing but a secondary school teaching of scientific method, the results gotten in science always show that nature lacks intelligent control. science searches nature, only to discover that apparent designs are no designs at all.


striktlymi: The above is a classic example of the fallacy of false cause.

I will save you the trouble of mentioning the "many things". Just pick two of your best and explain.

The above is incorrect. Intelligent control is basically needed when one attempts to make some specific things. Man by nature does not have the ability to 'create' i.e the ability to cause something to be. We make do of the lesser alternative, which is to make something out of what has already been caused to be. Intelligent control is needed when we want to make some of the items produced follow some specific 'commands'.

But when a creator who causes things to be is required to create there is absolutely no need for any 'intelligent control' because what is 'created' is not made from another 'created' thing and a creator unlike a maker can cause his creatures to be self sustaining...the problem here is that while you want to attribute things possible/impossible to humans to the creator, I make no such assumptions.

By saying "The above is incorrect. Intelligent control is basically needed when one attempts to make some specific things." are you saying that the creation of your God is purposeless? since you are implying that he wasnt making a specific thing

by saying the above, do you mean that your God created nature to kill unborn children by causing mutations in them, to cause cancer through rays and others, to cause dieases through HIV, are these the intelligent works of your God?

Did you not read when i said nature make mistakes in its pristine state without human intervention, mutation in babies that causes many diseases one example. It is the nature of DNA to be fallible, showing unintelligent origin

Besides, human inventions are automated to work perfectly. God is an omniscient being, i expect no mistakes from a perfect God. Do not compare human intelligence with your Gods, i cant believe am the one to have to tell you that.




striktlymi: WRONG!!!

Is there really an objective way to determine what is faulty? The act of something being faulty is rather subjective. What I might see as faulty might be working perfectly for you. Something is only faulty when it is not working as it was designed to. If a computer is designed to consider the operation:

(Start)===>(Get sum)===>(Average = Sum/2)===>(Output = average)===>(Stop)

but instead it performs the operation: (Start)===>(Get sum)===>(Average = Sum^2)===>(Output = average)===>(Stop)

then we can say the computer is faulty but note that the computer only performed the operation it was designed to carry out even though we see it as being faulty. In a similar vein the creator has so designed nature to be self sustaining such that there are laws inherent in mother nature and when these laws are tampered with the result is what is not meant to happen. The way nature acts or reacts does not mean that nature is faulty, she only acts in the way she was designed to.

Now, humans were designed to act free...we can choose to alter some of the cause of nature by some of our actions...this does not show that the design of man is faulty...it only shows that man is misusing the privileged granted to him by the creator and in the process his actions affects that of other creatures too. Mother nature follows some set rules put there by the creator and each time mother nature follows those rules it gives credence to the existence of the creator.

You claim that your God have created nature to be self sustaining, why then does nature self destruct itself, why does fire spontaneous start to kill life in a particular habitat. A computer that is self sustaining is automated by humans and will continue to function until tampered with or faulty, but in nature, things in their natural state are already faulty, solar flares occur from the sun, asteroids crash into the earth to kill people, animals kill animals, people kill people by natural instinct, is this a self sustaining act of intelligence or self destructive act? Nature obviously shows no intelligent thought in it affairs and origin.


striktlymi: Well it would be unfair for you to use something I can't respond to.

i didnt say you shouldnt respond to it, i only said you shouldnt base on it.



striktlymi: Anything yet to be caused to be.

According to you, if your God was uncaused, THEN YOUR GOD IS NOTHING.


striktlymi: I mean whatever 'is' was caused by the creator.

If "whatever is" was caused by a creator, and if your creator "is", who caused him/her?



striktlymi: Let them defend their argument and I will mine.

You disagree with that statement because it also creators problem for you. so now you actually believe that something can come from nothing. Actually, there is no " nothing", everything, every vacuum is filled with unconscious energy that cannot be created or destroyed. Exactly what i want you to believe. but still we have a problem with what this eternal thing is, you think its a conscious God, which is logically impossible (until it can be observed otherwise, at least), i believe its an unconscious energy, which is the perfect explanation and the only one proved by nature itself.



striktlymi: Having the ability of causing consciousness is not the same as making everything conscious. The creator can choose what becomes conscious and what does not. Man has the ability to walk and also can choose to make a robot walk like him but this does not mean that everything made by man must walk because man has the ability to walk. The above is just your own theory.

The above is not my theory. robots did not come directly from man, remember that, but everything came DIRECTLY from God, therefore everything has to be conscious. A cell that came from me, a living being, has to have life. Do you understand?



striktlymi: The subject of consciousness is something I would rather not go into but since it is on the table I will just have to talk a bit about it. I am of the opinion that consciousness is something humans are still trying to understand. We really do not yet understand it in its entirety. There are some questions that comes to mind after going through your analysis. If consciousness is only brought about by one's brain cells, why then can't we bring back a freshly dead body with 'working body functions' to life by just implanting a fresh brain into it?

Striky, i would say you disappointed me by saying the above. Death is brought about by disintegration of DNA material. i will stop there and tell you this. Search for Deinoccocus Radiodurans. Its a "miracle" bacteria that can "resurrect" itself. Yes it can come back to life after being confirmed "clinically dead" by various techs. This is what happens in it. Since the DNA is unconscious, the bacteria have two copies of its genome, one functions for normal life processes which makes it alive, the other is dormant and is half the first genome, when the bacteria "dies", that is by hunger or by radiation or by any laboratory procedure that kills every cell that never resurrects, the dormant one will be stimulated chemically by the non functionality of the working genome, the dormant genome then rearranges the metabolic genome, then the bacteria sprout to life again, in less than 2 hours. Research is on going to use this technique to raise human dead cells too. This bacteria is an extremophile, so this property is not surprising when explained by evolution.i see no reason why an intelligent God would give such property to bacteria that cannot mourn death and not human that loses his own children to death



striktlymi: @'Bold: I don't believe I ever used that phrase. If I make heaven, I will surely remember to ask God where he came from. grin

I obviously see that even though your answers are so easy because all you need to say i that the creator did this or that and chose to do this or that the way he pleases, you still lack some answers, disappointing.

since you lack answer to that, you are obliged to believe that it is possible for life to come from none life, since you will never agree that another creator God created your own God who created you, and even if that is true, then the question continues until we reach an eternal unconscious entity, ENERGY ITSELF, from which the first God evolved from and then made all things, like we evolved by chemical evolution and then made everything we have.


striktlymi: Explain how it all began...don't start from what is being postulated already in evolution...Even evolution cannot tell us how it all began.

The bold is your opinion on the matter.

I recommended a book for you, read it, if you still have questions of how it all began, then ask. the book is new and it explains how it all began wink

striktlymi: Evidence as used can imply being witnesses. I have had personal encounters with God which has gone a long way in strengthening my faith in him. Hence the faith I have constitute 'evidence' on a personal level. Evidence as you know it is not what the author tried to pass across. The above is really your own interpretation of the message.

I dont like your insincerity on this subject. YOur God wants me to worship him, he gotta offer me proof of his existence and that is faith. Dont think that a dreamnight of seeing God saying, ah oh i am god and stuff will make me cry to his fit, i need confidently assured evidence, i need faith. i need faith to believe God exist. You are there, i cant see you, i have faith you are there because i can communicate you, i need such obvious communication with God too, not some whisper after which you will blame me for not listening enough.


striktlymi: You really are getting it very wrong. Personally I don't mind you being an atheist if in right conscience you believe that is the way for you. And frankly I don't want someone to become Christian when the individual is not convinced about Christianity. That conviction needs to be there and it only comes when one has had a personal experience with God. That is God's job not mine!

same here, but dont forget matt. 28v19-20. It is your obligation.



striktlymi: I will advice you explain things you know something about. Interpretation of sacred scriptures is really not meant for everyone. I do understand all that you have put forth.

Interpretation of holy scriptures is obviously for you, by inference from your answer, so pls, interpret the verses and tell me i do not need faith to believe in God and that i do not need confidently assured evidence to believe in God, tell me i only need to be baptized and brainwashed and we can call it even right now.refer to my picture

striktlymi:

WRONG again!!!

One is only free from the burden of proof when he or she does not make an assertion of his or her own. Anyone who makes an assertion is bound by this 'burden' whether you choose to call it positive or negative assertions.

An atheist who refuses a belief is free from this burden cause the onus will be on the one who asserts to prove his or her position if he or she wants the Atheist to accept his or her claims.

But when an Atheist holds an assertion of his or her own then the burden of proof is on that Atheist also. There is no running away from this one.

we are together in a room, i say santa clause is here now, you say its not because we both can't see it and you dont really care if santa clause is present or not and i want you to really believe so you will not lose your present from santa clause, the burden therefore, is on me to prove my assertions, because i am the one trying to convince you, remember that.

1 Like

Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 9:13am On Feb 23, 2013
striktlymi: Delete pls! double posting!

I posted it for you to see.
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 3:03pm On Feb 23, 2013
this will be useful to our discussion

Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 3:22pm On Feb 23, 2013
ooman:

I posted it for you to see.

Relax I will respond in time! Hopefully my modem will be up and running on or before close of business on Monday.

It will be clumsy responding with my phone.


Thanks!
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 12:02pm On Apr 20, 2013
striktlymi:

Relax I will respond in time! Hopefully my modem will be up and running on or before close of business on Monday.

It will be clumsy responding with my phone.


Thanks!

Your modem hasn't started working still?? Striky, you are a quitter. cheesy
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 2:04pm On Apr 20, 2013
ooman:

Your modem hasn't started working still?? Striky, you are a quitter. cheesy

grin
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 2:06pm On Apr 20, 2013
striktlymi:

grin
cool
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 2:40pm On Apr 20, 2013
ooman:
cool

Don't worry, I will respond to your querry.

Using my mobile now!
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Nobody: 7:00pm On Apr 20, 2013
ooman:

Your modem hasn't started working still?? Striky, you are a quitter. cheesy

Good evening oh demoted one,

On second thoughts, I will 'chicken' out of this debate. wink
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by ooman(m): 1:28pm On Apr 21, 2013
striktlymi:

Good evening oh demoted one,

On second thoughts, I will 'chicken' out of this debate. wink

Oh demoted one, i am not surprised. cool
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Kobojunkie: 4:04am On Mar 15, 2023
ooman:
Faith according Heb 11 v 1 is the confident assurance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.
First, contrary to what many may like to believe, Hebrews 11 vs 1 does not contain a definition of the word faith . Rather what the writer does in the context is attempts a figurative comparison of faith with the evidence/substance, the promises of God, that come as a result of ir. Faith itself is not defined in the context of that passage. For this reason, the word faith, in the context, is used in reference to efforts made by such a person as Abraham while pointing out the evidence/benefits that resulted from such effort. undecided

God Himself explained what the word faith means in Genesis 26 vs 5 when He pointed out that the reason why He made a promise to Abraham had to do with the fact that Abraham lived his life in submission and obedience of His, God's, teachings and commandments - Faith. God gave that as the one and the only reason why He made Abraham His friend. This offer we observe Jesus Christ makes with all those of His followers who will do as He says - John 15 vs 9 -14 — those who will submit to and obey His teachings and commandments in the Kingdom of God. So, there you have it. Faith refers to living one's life in continuous submission and obedience to God's commandments and teachings, and in our case, in Jesus Christ. This definition is observed as being used in the Old Testament as well as in the New Covenant by Jesus Christ Himself. undecided
Re: Faith: What It Means To An Unprovable concept of God for the religious. by Kobojunkie: 3:49pm On Mar 18, 2023
ooman:
■ Now, striky, i wrote you a phrase you havent been able to refute, FAITH IS NOT MATH, MATH IS NOT FAITH. Science never believes in anything by faith but by math. Even though we don't see somethings yet, things like energy, protons, baryons etc, we can work them out, we can quantify them, so we believe they exist, untill we can observe otherwise.
■ (first premise)On the contrary, believe in God is never irrefutably quantifiable or is God observable. The only evidence for God has always been design, but design is not enough for a person to claim full right over a product, the claimer has to have full patent over it that will serve as the EVIDENCE of ownership. The design we see in nature can be perfectly explained by evolution and as also by creation BUT Evolution has mathematical proves (the full patent), creation only has faith (claims).
■ (second premise)Since the definition of faith is CONFIDENCE ASSURANCE AND EVIDENCE, which is lacking in proving the existence of a God, Faith has therefore self-destruct, it has self-disproved the existence of any God. According to the definition of faith, there must be CONFIDENTLY ASSURED EVIDENCES, WHICH IS LACKING IN religion, Christianity. Therefore, i conclude that the definition of faith has helped disproved the existence of God, what do you think?
Now that we have the scriptural meaning of faith resolved and out of the way, lets approach the various claims made by the OP in this.

1. undecided

2. This is ridiculous! The only evidence for God is design? Scripture highlights a fact of God which is that He has never been God of all but is instead God of those who exists under an agreement with Him. That was the case with Adam, with Abraham, with the Israelites — God of Israel — and also in Jesus Christ — God of individuals who belong in the Kingdom of God. And when it comes to evidence/proof of His existence beyond that which is seen, He gives that only to those who are in agreement with Him. undecided

3. Please go back and read the book abeg! Ignorance is not bliss abeg! undecided

(1) (Reply)

Come Let's Reason Together. Is ( My Helper) Truely A Christain Music? / What Is Prayer? / Was Moses Lazy?.

(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. 289
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.