hopefulLandlord:


12

you got any problem with that?

Oh well!

Rilwayne001:


Oh well!

in a war of ego, the loser always wins

sounds familiar?

.

hopefulLandlord:


you're so so intelligent that you can't see that you've been disgracing yourself on this thread; I'm simply tryna save a mature man like you from further embarrassment

I'm out

Like you could save yourself with an umbrella from the rain. duh!
If I needed saving from your imaginary embarrassment definitely not from a class act in battiness so I'll pass.

hopefulLandlord:


in a war of ego, the loser always wins

sounds familiar?

You are the winner. Are you happy now?

Rilwayne001:

You are the winner. Are you happy now?

a 12 year old me?
nah, I'm like Naijadeyhia, I respect my elders

PastorAIO:
Apology accepted

However the challenge still stands for you to show me where I defined God.

The one thing that will stand out about me since the first day I started with NL is my insistence that God cannot be defined. There is no way that I could do such a thing, not even absent mindedly, in my sleep, no way Jose.

I said described. But that hardly matters - define - whatever. The point remains that you have qualified God severally in the past. I have interacted with you on this forum since 2009 when I registered and surely you do not think I have enough time on my hands to engage in such a pointless task as beginning to go through all your posts and search for this or that quote - no - even if I can look for a few, it is a meaningless thing to engage myself with.

Haven said that, I have already provided you with a response - and that is simply your revert to Joshthefirst on this thread "God does not exist." It was your primary contention that one cannot say "God is existence" and you gave your reasons for saying so. You see, in so doing you have already qualified God - the minute you state what God cannot be, you have already to a certain extent described or defined a range of things that God can and will be - you have ascribed qualities and you have given limitations.

This very thing is evident in your very words on that thread and I sincerely hope you do not begin to ask me to quote what you wrote in the thread opened by Joshthefirst.

The very reason we have nouns, verbs and adjectives is to identify things, places, persons, and to describe them, and to describe actions.

This in itself lends itself to limitations and thus where you can use these to describe human perceptions, you cannot use same with regard to that which is described as God: and your quarrel that it makes no sense to say that God is existence itself, is flat-footed and misdirected. There is nothing wrong with saying that God is existence itself, and I pointed out that such a take finds fertile ground in pantheistic and panentheistic thinking.

In saying this I do not address myself to the Christian perception of God alone. And my reason in that is that whilst I have a broader take on God, many of the attributes conferred on the Divine element by the Abrahamic religions still hold true, reasonable and firm. That attribute described by Joshthefirst does as well - and represents a deep take on Divinity.

Furthermore recall that which actually struck my interest and led to the whole conversation - the idea that it is possible for a person to "not exist". That is a contradiction in terms - it is not possible to be a person and to not exist. That is simply like saying that a thing that exists also at the same time does not exist.

I am not impressed with your attempt to shy away from any and all description of God because it is nothing but your futilist approach to discussions rearing its head again. You enjoy chasing your tail and saying meaningless worthless things. It has been your custom to attack any proposition on God whilst hardly bringing anything of worth to the table yourself. I do not respect that: for while God is indeed ineffable, it is actually meaningless to describe IT as God at all if one has your stance. For on what basis would one even use the word "God" at all?

The truth is that the minute you even use the word, there is something that you have in mind which you are referring to - and as such you have a definition even within your head, even if it is encased in mystery. Otherwise you are saying that language is meaningless and we should not even use the word "God" at all!

If someone refers to God as simply as saying "the Creator" you would probably dispute even such a simple definition.
That is nothing but meaningless and worthless futilism.

Anas09:

How girlish? . So girls are retards? Enh my sweet DeepSight?

No, not at all. Absolutely not: there are just certain mannerisms or behavioral patterns that one expects from girls, from boys, from men and from women. For example it might be boyish to play football in the mud all day everyday - this does not mean that it is either good or bad. But it is boyish. Pastor AIO's behaviour right from the other thread and even the act of creating this thread was rather girly. This is not to say it is either good or bad, but it is childish - and is more likely the behavior of a girl child rather than a boy child.

Mind you boys do very silly things as well. Boyish silly things.

PastorAIO:


Rock steady? That would explain why you're so dense.

1..., 2...., and 3.

KNOCK OUT!!!!

DeepSight:


No, not at all. Absolutely not: there are just certain mannerisms or behavioral patterns that one expects from girls, from boys, from men and from women. For example it might be boyish to play football in the mud all day everyday - this does not mean that it is either good or bad. But it is boyish. Pastor AIO's behaviour right from the other thread and even the act of creating this thread was rather girly. This is not to say it is either good or bad, but it is childish - and is more likely the behavior of a girl child rather than a boy child.

Mind you boys do very silly things as well. Boyish silly things.

Unless my comprehension skills are wanting,That still sounds sexist and misogynistic.

plaetton:


Unless my comprehension skills are wanting,That still sounds sexist and misogynistic.

Oh not at all. I actually regard the generality of women as superior beings to the generality of men.

Saying something is girly is not chauvinism. To read romance novels, or wear flowers is girly. To play around outdoors in the mud is boyish. Neither is a discriminatory statement. I could say an adult is behaving like a little boy or little girl. That is not sexist.

Please do not taint me with the brush of misogyny as I am anything but, infact I strongly resent misogynists.

DeepSight:


Oh not at all. I actually regard the generality of women as superior beings to the generality of men.

Saying something is girly is not chauvinism. To read romance novels, or wear flowers is girly. To play around outdoors in the mud is boyish. Neither is a discriminatory statement. I could say an adult is behaving like a little boy or little girl. That is not sexist.

Please do not taint me with the brush of misogyny as I am anything but, infact I strongly resent misogynists.

Oki Doki

DeepSight:


No, not at all. Absolutely not: there are just certain mannerisms or behavioral patterns that one expects from girls, from boys, from men and from women. For example it might be boyish to play football in the mud all day everyday - this does not mean that it is either good or bad. But it is boyish. Pastor AIO's behaviour right from the other thread and even the act of creating this thread was rather girly. This is not to say it is either good or bad, but it is childish - and is more likely the behavior of a girl child rather than a boy child.
Mind you boys do very silly things as well. Boyish silly things.

lol @boyish silly things.

It's okay sir, i totally get you.

^^^ Danke

plaetton:


Unless my comprehension skills are wanting,That still sounds sexist and misogynistic.

Mr plaetton,glad to see you're still having a field day with your 'ist' ending words

plaetton:

Oki Doki

Off topic

Uncle plaetton, where is the landslide victory you predicted for Hilary Clinton a while ago on one of your threads?

peterphd:



Off topic

Uncle plaetton, where is the landslide victory you predicted for Hilary Clinton a while ago on one of your threads?

Lol.
Well , shit happens.

The world has gone mad.

plaetton:


Lol.
Well , shit happens.

The world has gone mad.

It's not called demonstration of craze for nothing... Lolz

The Chinese said it better.. American democracy in crisis..

I vaguely remember someone constantly whining about how his good friend is neither here nor there. Iirc, complaining about how said person asserted you cannot absolutely know anything except, of course, the assertion he was making at the moment (more or else the gist of things; I simplify).

Now, said person is here claiming his good friend held an absolute position other than that

Which one u dey ser?

I Hail both good sers BTW, on this most śhitty of days

wiegraf:


Now, said person is here claiming his good friend held an absolute position other than that

Amadioha retrieve your tongue, I did not say any such thing.

Now it is eminently clear that a principality has taken hold of you and demons are speaking inside your throat.

DeepSight:


Amadioha retrieve your tongue, I did not say any such thing.

Now it is eminently clear that a principality has taken hold of you and demons are speaking inside your throat.

Them are fighting words.

DeepSight:


Amadioha retrieve your tongue, I did not say any such thing.

Now it is eminently clear that a principality has taken hold of you and demons are speaking inside your throat.

Wouldn't a positive description of god qualify as an absolute position, good ser?

wiegraf:


Wouldn't a positive description of god qualify as an absolute position, good ser?

Not to the extent that the positive description is inchoate.

We can know positive things bout anything which are still inchoate.

For example we do not know all there is to know yet even about ourselves and our own bodies, but we still know some things which we may give positive descriptions on, is that not the case?

The simple delineation between my position and that of alakori Pastor AIO is that I state certain attributes of God whilst still acknowledging that God is a mystery. Those attributes that I state and argue for are none but the inescapably obvious. On the other hand, alakori Pastor AIO retires into his chasm with a Jewish-Like attitude that noting must be said about God's nature at all.

plaetton:




Them are fighting words.

I ought to have credited FFK.

He used that comical turn of words when criticizing Buhari over Za Oza room issue.

I really love the way he writes, his caustic words are just too funny, although I don't know about his politicking or his sanity.

He described the work of that professor who wrote Buhari's biography recently as "that accursed book"!

DeepSight:




... that I state certain attributes of God whilst still acknowledging that God is a mystery. Those attributes that I state and argue for are none but the inescapably obvious. On the other hand, alakori Pastor AIO retires into his chasm with a Jewish-Like attitude that noting must be said about God's nature at all.

The contradictions in your position are too obvious if for you to ignore.

Pastor AIO's position is more sensible.

If you say that God is a mystery, you are admitting that nothing about God is certain and obvious. Thus, all supposed attributes of God are at best, speculative and imaginative.
Not so ?

plaetton:


The contradictions in your position are too obvious if for you to ignore.

You might think so, my child, but I am here to enlighten you.

Pastor AIO's position is more sensible.

It is the position of a futilist.

As he used to like to quote in the past - "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". . . .

What this simply means is that he and everyone should forever remain silent on the subject of God as nothing whatsoever can be known about it.

This is not only futile, is also runs against the grain of all scientific, and inquiring thinking.

If you say that God is a mystery, you are admitting that nothing about God is certain and obvious. Thus, all supposed attributes of God are at best, speculative and imaginative.
Not so ?

No: the fact that something is a mystery does not mean that nothing at all about it can be known. The knowledge is simply inchoate, or not complete. That the Earth is a sphere which orbits the sun is certain knowledge. This does not mean that there is not still much mystery about the Earth and Sun. Same with the Universe.

My position simply articulates just that: whereas Pastor AIO's position is simply that nothing can be known and as such everyone should just permanently shut up. It is a very negative and worthless position which contributes nothing to critical thought. In fact, it is the very antithesis of critical thought in philosophy.

DeepSight:


Not to the extent that the positive description is inchoate.

We can know positive things bout anything which are still inchoate.

For example we do not know all there is to know yet even about ourselves and our own bodies, but we still know some things which we may give positive descriptions on, is that not the case?

The simple delineation between my position and that of alakori Pastor AIO is that I state certain attributes of God whilst still acknowledging that God is a mystery. Those attributes that I state and argue for are none but the inescapably obvious. On the other hand, alakori Pastor AIO retires into his chasm with a Jewish-Like attitude that noting must be said about God's nature at all.

With some subjects there are very few things that would qualify as inescapably obvious

His problem might be that you are making positive claims about things you cannot know, and he seeks to avoid that

So, the problem might not be that you're making claims, just the nature of said claims

wiegraf:


With some subjects there are very few things that would qualify as inescapably obvious

My point is sealed in the very fact that you say - "very few things" as opposed to "absolutely nothing can be known"

His problem might be that you are making positive claims about things you cannot know, and he seeks to avoid that

His problem is that I am a thinker: and I seek to put thoughts on the table whereas he seeks to remove all thoughts from the table on the pretext that nothing can be known. Hardly different from what the old Catholic Church did to the ordinary people: deny them any thoughts at all.

At all events I don't make positive claims about things I cannot know: you have not seen me saying something along the lines as - "God came to the earth as a man and died for your sins 2016 years ago", have you?

The claims I make are simple and cannot be argued against logically: that God is eternal and transcendental for example. Left to oloriburuku Pastor AIO, even saying such, should be forbidden.

DeepSight:


The claims I make are simple and cannot be argued against logically: that God is eternal and transcendental for example. Left to oloriburuku Pastor AIO, even saying such, should be forbidden.

But, but in most logical frameworks there's nothing simple and a lot to be disputed in the example you give...

plaetton:


The contradictions in your position are too obvious if for you to ignore.

Pastor AIO's position is more sensible.

If you say that God is a mystery, you are admitting that nothing about God is certain and obvious. Thus, all supposed attributes of God are at best, speculative and imaginative.
Not so ?

Thank you. Perhaps my position may be better understood by those with learning difficulties if I stated it like this.

Superficially It appears like I'm saying that ' You can't say God XYZ'. But those that are gifted with incisive discernment will realise that I'm saying that 'God is just as much NOT-XYZ as he is XYZ'. Subsequently what is the point of saying 'God is XYZ'.
Terming and naming things doesn't just tell us what they are, they also tell us what they are not. That is the whole meaning of the word 'term'. A Term is something that has limits. A term could be a limited span of time. Or a term could refer to an object with boundaries and limits such as a shoe box. A shoe box is not also everything that is NOT a shoe box.

Language, words, and terms, are used and have evolved precisely to communicate facts about objects that have limits. They refer to terms. God is not a term. Yet one can say he also is a term. Thus we have paradox. Paradox for me is just where Logic and human reasoning meets ultimate realities.

Ultimately we are talking about where all dichotomies, either or, this or that, here or there, now or then, etc etc etc break down and are no longer workable.

wiegraf:


But, but in most logical frameworks there's nothing simple and a lot to be disputed in the example you give...

I do not even mind of one disputes it: in fact debate is the life of the party: what I mind is someone saying that everyone should just shut up and keep quiet as nothing can ever be known. . . .

PastorAIO:



Thank you. Perhaps my position may be better understood by those with learning difficulties if I stated it like this.

Superficially It appears like I'm saying that ' You can't say God XYZ'. But those that are gifted with incisive discernment will realise that I'm saying that 'God is just as much NOT-XYZ as he is XYZ'. Subsequently what is the point of saying 'God is XYZ'.
Terming and naming things doesn't just tell us what they are, they also tell us what they are not. That is the whole meaning of the word 'term'. A Term is something that has limits. A term could be a limited span of time. Or a term could refer to an object with boundaries and limits such as a shoe box. A shoe box is not also everything that is NOT a shoe box.

Language, words, and terms, are used and have evolved precisely to communicate facts about objects that have limits. They refer to terms. God is not a term. Yet one can say he also is a term. Thus we have paradox. Paradox for me is just where Logic and human reasoning meets ultimate realities.

Ultimately we are talking about where all dichotomies, either or, this or that, here or there, now or then, etc etc etc break down and are no longer workable.

This is pure gibberish.

You are talking unrefined shi't.

Nothing here is of any use: if anything you have just affirmed exactly what I said earlier: to wit: saying what God cannot be, is already defining God. I said that earlier, perhaps you did not read it. And yet you defined what God cannot be in your revert to Joshthefirst.

Rather than waiting for praise-singers to assist you before you coyly come about to say "thank you" to them, why don't you just stop menstruating already and man up to the real points? ? ?

You are a clown.