Logicboy03:


Ode......certainty is key

An omniscient being knows the future with 100% certainty.

I could die before I marry. You dont have even 60% certainty that you or I will see tomorrow

I am 100% certain you will sh@g b4 u marty and you and I won't meet tomorrow.

Uyi Iredia:

I am 100% certain you will sh@g b4 u marty and you and I won't meet tomorrow.

What if I am a eunuch that only toasts Ishilove to get satisfaction?


There are no absolutes with human knowledge.

I could walk past your house in Lagos tommorow and not know it.

Mr Troll: evidence. Facts. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Who decides what is "evidence", "fact" and "proof beyond reasonable doubt?"

What some call proof, others dismiss as no-proof.

wiegraf:

This is obviously beyond them. They insist god is responsible for good only. Bad? No. Despite his creating everything....

.... And being omnipotent as well

Alpha and omega, as you say. This is whargarbl, but they still insist it's so.

It's fun watching those not afraid to face this fact address it, they become heretics. On this forum there's.obadiah (satan is god's partner) and okeyzxy (being xtian 'good' is hard and not secular 'good')

By your definitions in your ps, everything is an illusion

now it depends on what you mean by "everything"..you could say physicality is an illusion though...and i hope i dont confuse you with this.. but yes "everything" is an illusion. "NOTHING" is real. The only thing real is NOTHING. the only real "reality" is NOTHING..
it is from the "nothingness" that all things spring forth..The only thing real is consciousness..

once you understand the above you will know that everything(both seen and unseen-the something and the nothing) is not/cannot be an illusion. there must be (and there is) some reality otherwise the word "illusion" becomes nonsensical..

italo:

Who decides what is "evidence", "fact" and "proof beyond reasonable doubt?"

What some call proof, others dismiss as no-proof.

This is called ‘playing dumb’.


If i told you that i was a millionaire, you would ask for my bank statement.

If I told you that that I own a car, you would ask for the particulars....

Guy, we all know what evidence is.

Logicboy03:


Ode......certainty is key

An omniscient being knows the future with 100% certainty.

I could die before I marry. You dont have even 60% certainty that you or I will see tomorrow

I'm guessing you haven't seen Uyi's comment on this thread...




https://www.nairaland.com/1425258/believe-myself-therefore-believe-god#17892622

Logicboy03:


This is called ‘playing dumb’.


If i told you that i was a millionaire, you would ask for my bank statement.

If I told you that that I own a car, you would ask for the particulars....

Guy, we all know what evidence is.

I came from Mars.... what evidence do you need apart from my words?

italo:

Who decides what is logical?

Atheists?

Logic. Look up the meaning of the word foo.lish, it's fairly simple. Currently mobile, can't bothered.

This isn't subjective, holding a false premise that's patently false (and may even harm you) is foo:lish, simple. There's good reason overly emotional people aren't allowed near certain positions; they tend to be foo:lish. These are the folk more likely to go with a false premise simply because it appeals to them, no surprise many are religious. (Tossing away pc, i'm looking at you, stereotypical women, though many dudes qualify as well, obviously, and not all women are unnecessarily irrational)

And even if you were indulged, a big if, making it subjective changes nothing. He'd still qualify as the perfect foo:lish to some regardless, just as he remains the perfect bad to many

greatgenius: now it depends on what you mean by "everything"..you could say physicality is an illusion though...and i hope i dont confuse you with this.. but yes "everything" is an illusion. "NOTHING" is real. The only thing real is NOTHING. the only real "reality" is NOTHING..
it is from the "nothingness" that all things spring forth..The only thing real is consciousness..

once you understand the above you will know that everything(both seen and unseen-the something and the nothing) is not/cannot be an illusion. there must be (and there is) some reality otherwise the word "illusion" becomes nonsensical..

Then you're cherry picking what's real and what isn't

On another note, this is a bit like solipism, no?

wiegraf:

Then you're cherry picking what's real and what isn't

no i am not. unless you failed to understand what i said..for instance i am not cherry picking if assert that matter or form is an illusion.. that which comes out of something else is an illusion..

On another note, this is a bit like solipism, no?

yea sort of you could say..i have been saying this in different ways since i joined this forum that all there is, is SELF. and noone or nothing else exist outside of us..there is only one of us and we(God) are all there is.. we are all representations or individuations of this SELF-The source. we are all projections of our HIGHER SELF(God).. like the cells in your body we are all playing our roles. The SELF(God) "created" all of this(life)from within(within because nothing else exist outise of itself so the only reference point is from within) in order to experience Self/itself.. we are all acting. you could say God(self) was bored out of his mind..

Logicboy03:


What if I am a eunuch that only toasts Ishilove to get satisfaction?


There are no absolutes with human knowledge.

I could walk past your house in Lagos tommorow and not know it.

Ha ha, veeerrry funny. Smh

greatgenius: no i am not. unless you didn't understand what i said..for instance i am not cherry picking if assert that matter or form is an illusion.. that which comes out of something else is an illusion..

yea sort of you could say..i have been saying this in different ways since i joined this forum that all there is, is SELF. and noone or nothing else exist outside of us..there is only one of us and we(God) are all there is.. we are all representations or individuations of this SELF-The source. we are all projections of our HIGHER SELF(God).. like the cells in your body we are all playing our roles. The SELF(God) "created" all of this(life)from within(within because nothing else exist outise of itself so the only reference point is from within) in order to experience Self/itself.. we are all acting. you could say God(self) was bored out of his mind..

You know, the word" create" brings a lot of problems when you are trying to explain abstract concepts.

To create implies that there was a time when nothing existed. For anyone to create means that something existed prior ( which is a contradiction). Then questions arise as to the nature of the creator, and then who or what created it?
How did it gain foreknowledge of what it wanted to create?.

If you can't answer these questions, then dont use the word " create".

greatgenius: no i am not. unless you didn't understand what i said..for instance i am not cherry picking if assert that matter or form is an illusion.. that which comes out of something else is an illusion..

When you say;

greatgenius:
P/s let me add that the negative end or dark side is an illusion.. we "created" it for a reason..e.g there can be no smartest without its equally direct opposite the dumbest or most foolish..such a concept will not hold.. we created relativity from the beginning of time for a reason. TO EXPERIENCE.

You're cherry picking what's an illusion and what's not. As there's really no difference between smartest and dumbest, both are more or else (in this context) concepts. Though true, I may be misunderstanding you. You may be trying to say something about scales or degrees, and you might need to clarify for me. But even then, I don't think it will hold.

greatgenius:
yea sort of you could say..i have been saying this in different ways since i joined this forum that all there is, is SELF. and noone or nothing else exist outside of us..there is only one of us and we(God) are all there is.. we are all representations or individuations of this SELF-The source. we are all projections of our HIGHER SELF(God).. like the cells in your body we are all playing our roles. The SELF(God) "created" all of this(life)from within(within because nothing else exist outise of itself so the only reference point is from within) in order to experience Self/itself.. we are all acting. you could say God(self) was bored out of his mind..

As usual, you say something that may be viable, but put it in such a way that makes it border on being whargarbl
Not criticism per se btw, you're well welcome to your views and interpretations, and who am I to say you're wrong, considering what you say put in another way could make sense (subjectively to me, ie).

That said, my own personal views on death, afterlife, immortality etc are solipsistic, but I wouldn't extend it beyond that without care, even if they may ostensibly hold philosophically (not physically, definitely).

@ Plaeton will answer your questions/concerns but read my post again. I specifically put create in quotes.. I also said she created from within.. if nothing else exists outside of yourself then you can only " create " from within.. and since its from within then the creation or the created is an illusion.. its very simple..

plaetton:

You know, the word" create" brings a lot of problems when you are trying to explain abstract concepts.

To create implies that there was a time when nothing existed. For anyone to create means that something existed prior ( which is a contradiction).

actually this is not a contradiction at all. "To create implies that there was a time when nothing existed" doesn't mean "something" never existed. of course something existed prior. that something is what you are calling NOTHING... remember NOTHING is something with no properties.. when you break matter down to its core what you get is NOTHING...SO yes NOTHING has always existed..but again that nothing is something . it is just something with no properties...again i dont want to confuse you but nothing existed means "something existed..

Then questions arise as to the nature of the creator, and then who or what created it?
How did it gain foreknowledge of what it wanted to create?.

If you can't answer these questions, then dont use the word " create".

like i said there is a reason why i put it in quotes as i didn't want us to go this route.

italo:

Who decides what is "evidence", "fact" and "proof beyond reasonable doubt?"

What some call proof, others dismiss as no-proof.

er...there's something called reasonable doubt, no?

Are you dumb or you're just making a special effort here?

If I say i'm a guy and you disagree. I then show you my fully nude picture with my pipi dangling, will that count as evidence? If you just dismiss so called evidence offhand, will that still count as reasonable doubt?

You have common sense, no?

Logicboy03:


What if I am a eunuch that only toasts Ishilove to get satisfaction?


There are no absolutes with human knowledge.

I could walk past your house in Lagos tommorow and not know it.

You can't walk pasr my house. It's in a cul-de-sac. I am all too sure you have the average-sized dong which has been since launched. All your talk-talk don't mean a thing: knowing what someone will doesn't mean the person can choose, dammit you need to watch Neo's secondnmeeting with the Oracle.

Logicboy03:
This is called ‘playing dumb’.


If i told you that i was a millionaire, you would ask for my bank statement.

If I told you that that I own a car, you would ask for the particulars....

Guy, we all know what evidence is.

If we all agreed on what evidence is, why do people still argue on things that "evidence" has been presented for?

You believe in macro evolution, mazaje doesnt. Yet there is "evidence."

The US believes the Syrian Government used chemical weapons on its citizens; Russia believes it isnt true. Yet there is "evidence."

I can go on and on but I'm sure you understand already.

Even if you presented a bank statement and vehicle papers, it wouldnt necessarily mean that you have a car and a million. I'm sure you agree...dont make me expantiate.

So I repeat. Who decides what is "evidence?"

wiegraf:

Logic. Look up the meaning of the word foo.lish, it's fairly simple. Currently mobile, can't bothered.

This isn't subjective, holding a false premise that's patently false (and may even harm you) is foo:lish, simple. There's good reason overly emotional people aren't allowed near certain positions; they tend to be foo:lish. These are the folk more likely to go with a false premise simply because it appeals to them, no surprise many are religious. (Tossing away pc, i'm looking at you, stereotypical women, though many dudes qualify as well, obviously, and not all women are unnecessarily irrational)

And even if you were indulged, a big if, making it subjective changes nothing. He'd still qualify as the perfect foo:lish to some regardless, just as he remains the perfect bad to many

It is logic that defines logic?

Yet you accuse other people of circular reasoning!

Wise man, who defines logic?

italo:

If we all agreed on what evidence is, why do people still argue on things that "evidence" has been presented for?

You believe in macro evolution, mazaje doesnt. Yet there is "evidence."

The US believes the Syrian Government used chemical weapons on its citizens; Russia believes it isnt true. Yet there is "evidence."

I can go on and on but I'm sure you understand already.

Even if you presented a bank statement and vehicle papers, it wouldnt necessarily mean that you have a car and a million. I'm sure you agree...dont make me expantiate.

So I repeat. Who decides what is "evidence?"

Bank statement is evidence for your bank balance.

However, a bank statement can be forged.



Evidence itself has to be scrutinized.


Your God doesnt even have evidence to be scrutinized.
Evolution is the most scrutinized scientific theory known to man....thanks to religious blowhard

The fossil and dna evidence have been scrutinized and found compelling. The people who dont accept Macro evolution are people who are not ready to think and research about it.


Pitiful that Majaze can not use the freethinking nature he has to free himself from the bondage scientific ignorance on macroevolution.


The funny thing is that microevolution is macroevolution on a smaller scale.

Uyi Iredia:

You can't walk pasr my house. It's in a cul-de-sac. I am all too sure you have the average-sized dong which has been since launched. All your talk-talk don't mean a thing: knowing what someone will doesn't mean the person can choose, dammit you need to watch Neo's secondnmeeting with the Oracle.

The oracle is not omnisicent.

Yaweh is supposedly omniscient.


As long as you lack 100% certainty of the future, your foreknowledge is not binding.

But as an omniscient being, you know the future. It is written and can not change.


You, Ihedinobi, Truthislight etc are all too foolish to go and google an encyclopedia of philosophy to show that omniscience and freewill are contradictory.


Gaddem bunch of ignorant mouthbreathers

Mr Troll: er...there's something called reasonable doubt, no?

Are you dumb or you're just making a special effort here?

If I say i'm a guy and you disagree. I then show you my fully nude picture with my pipi dangling, will that count as evidence? If you just dismiss so called evidence offhand, will that still count as reasonable doubt?

You have common sense, no?

Picture could be photo-shopped and if it isnt, you could have had a trans-gender surgery.

Why wont it count as reasonable doubt if I dismiss this "evidence?"

Besides, who decides what is "REASONABLE doubt?"

Logicboy03:


The oracle is not omnisicent.

Yaweh is supposedly omniscient.


As long as you lack 100% certainty of the future, your foreknowledge is not binding.

But as an omniscient being, you know the future. It is written and can not change.


You, Ihedinobi, Truthislight etc are all too foolish to go and google an encyclopedia of philosophy to show that omniscience and freewill are contradictory.


Gaddem bunch of ignorant mouthbreathers

Neo: D'you already know if I'm going to take it?

The Oracle: Wouldn't be much of an Oracle if I didn't.

Neo: But if you already know, how can I make a choice?

The Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make the choice,
you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you
made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Dammit omnisciency doesn't contradict free-will

Logicboy03:
Bank statement is evidence for your bank balance.

However, a bank statement can be forged.



Evidence itself has to be scrutinized.


Your God doesnt even have evidence to be scrutinized.
Evolution is the most scrutinized scientific theory known to man....thanks to religious blowhard

The fossil and dna evidence have been scrutinized and found compelling. The people who dont accept Macro evolution are people who are not ready to think and research about it.


Pitiful that Majaze can not use the freethinking nature he has to free himself from the bondage scientific ignorance on macroevolution.


The funny thing is that microevolution is macroevolution on a smaller scale.

It seems to me that "evidence" is what anyone decides that it means to them.

Anybody who disagrees with one is considered wrong. You even go as far as saying they arent thinking.

What I call "evidence," you dismiss. What you call "evidence," I dismiss.

Who decides who's right?

italo:

Picture could be photo-shopped and if it isnt, you could have had a trans-gender surgery.

Why wont it count as reasonable doubt if I dismiss this "evidence?"

Besides, who decides what is "REASONABLE doubt?"

now I have to spell it out? Smh

Listen man, if I present a picture, it counts as evidence. If you think its not genuine, you have to prove it. If you do then you can say that the evidence is inconclusive or false BUT not that i'm not a man. Kapisce? Now the onus will be on me to provide conclusive evidence of my being a man. Maybe birth records, scans, or even my physical self for thorough examination.
Now italo, it will be patently fooolish for me to tell you that "I'M A MAN! If you disagree, prove that I'm not!"

As for reasonable doubt, better check what reasonable means in the dictionary. I cant continue to hold your hand like a 5 yr old.

Provide conclusive evidence for yahweh or forever shut the fork up.

Mr Troll: now I have to spell it out? Smh

Listen man, if I present a picture, it counts as evidence. If you think its not genuine, you have to prove it. If you do then you can say that the evidence is inconclusive or false BUT not that i'm not a man. Kapisce? Now the onus will be on me to provide conclusive evidence of my being a man. Maybe birth records, scans, or even my physical self for thorough examination.
Now italo, it will be patently fooolish for me to tell you that "I'M A MAN! If you disagree, prove that I'm not!"

As for reasonable doubt, better check what reasonable means in the dictionary. I cant continue to hold your hand like a 5 yr old.

Provide conclusive evidence for yahweh or forever shut the fork up.

It is you that considers a picture as evidence, not everyone.

And remember, my initial question was: what makes beliefs true?

Pictures dont prove a belief to be true.

There are millions of pictures that are lies. So if you say a picture is evidence, it means "evidence" doesnt make beliefs true.

And I checked "reasonable."

Its meaning suggests that my doubt is reasonable.

italo:

What makes beliefs true?

Mr Troll: evidence. Facts. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr Troll:
Listen man, if I present a picture, it counts as evidence. If you think its not genuine, you have to prove it. If you do then you can say that the evidence is inconclusive or false BUT not that i'm not a man. Kapisce?

If "evidence" can possible be false, how then can it make beliefs true?

italo:

It is logic that defines logic?

Yet you accuse other people of circular reasoning!

Wise man, who defines logic?

Well, my humble one, math cannot describe math. That has never happened before. Math does not exist unless it is defined... I suppose by GOD??!!

wiegraf:

Well, my humble one, math cannot describe math. That has never happened before. Math does not exist unless it is defined... I suppose by GOD??!!

I dont get you.

Is it logic that defines logic or is it not?

italo:

I dont get you.

Is it logic that defines logic or is it not?

Do you create mathematical truths?

Uyi Iredia:

Neo: D'you already know if I'm going to take it?

The Oracle: Wouldn't be much of an Oracle if I didn't.

Neo: But if you already know, how can I make a choice?

The Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make the choice,
you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you
made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Dammit omnisciency doesn't contradict free-will

It does! From the above, it is explicit. Neo actually made an illusory choice, more of a mechanical, predetermined step.

What if Neo at the point of making the decision, decided deliberately to act against his destiny, in spite of "understanding" the choice that was predestined for him?!

@italo

To discharge you from the agony of describing and positively define God, I would take the step of explaining what the concept of God really is.

God has no shape or form nor essence, God is a concept within an existential void and irrelevant without a mythological context. God is a creation of the human psyche in need of provision, protection. God is a father figure to tend to our cravings, fill our gaps of understanding and mystify life.

God's main function isn't the creation of the Universe, rather he is a father, whose creation of "all", is merely to buttress his fatherly role. He is the pillar of morality. Daddy makes the rules that protect us etc.