vaxx:
Remmeber you once pull out one non comprehensive regulated sites with me( allaboutphilosophy) you become petty when i challenge
It

Your dishonesty is just mindboggling, vaxx!

Go on, remind me where this happened!

budaatum:

Your dishonesty is just mindboggling, vaxx!

Go on, remind me where this happened!

Remember internet don't lie. Let see who is dishonest here?

The two links are from non comprehensive sites. Got question and all about philosophy .

Even the two links are christain faith links according to their introduction.

https://www.nairaland.com/4459924/subjectivity-objectivity#66927559

My response

https://www.nairaland.com/4459924/subjectivity-objectivity#66928273

And you became shitty just like you are now reading this expose.
.

vaxx:
Remember internet don't lie. Let see who is dishonest here?

The links on that page are allabout philosophy. It expose you..... the two links are from non comprehensive sites. Got question and all about philosophy .

Even the two links are christain faith links according to their introduction.

https://www.nairaland.com/4459924/subjectivity-objectivity#66927559

My response

https://www.nairaland.com/4459924/subjectivity-objectivity#66928273
.

You are funny. That was all that was required at the time, but odd enough, just as on here, the point goes right over your head in your desire to massage your ego. And as usual, you attacked the source and paid absolutely no attention to the content therein. But I should understand you by now. I am a source too, but as I said, if I were to say "the sun was in the sky", you vaxx would likely argue that "the sky is in the sun". I guess the sight of buda presents a challenge to you. Believe me, even if I got my source off a piece of toilet paper, I'd still be making a lot more sense than you.

A clear example is you throwing Zeno's Paradox out there with no explanation of how it explains your point. You perhaps think you would muddle things up by throwing the kitchen sink at us, yet just about everyone who's posted on this thread has been unable to make heads or tails of the muddle you've written, while you seem to think it's because we are all brainless! The pity is that all you've posted in this thread is indicative of how your mind works, and shows you really need to go see a doctor.

budaatum:

You are funny. That was all that was required at the time, but odd enough, just as on here, the point goes right over your head in your desire to massage your ego. And as usual, you attacked the source and paid absolutely no attention to the content therein. But I should understand you by now. I am a source too, but as I said, if I were to say "the sun was in the sky", you vaxx would likely argue that "the sky is in the sun". I guess the sight of buda presents a challenge to you. Believe me, even if I got my source off a piece of toilet paper, I'd still be making a lot more sense than you.

A clear example is you throwing Zeno's Paradox out there with no explanation of how it explains your point. You perhaps think you would muddle things up by throwing the kitchen sink at us, yet just about everyone who's posted on this thread has been unable to make heads or tails of the muddle you've written, while you seem to think it's because we are all brainless! The pity is that all you've posted in this thread is indicative of how your mind works, and shows you really need to go see a doctor.

first of all . sorry for exposing your dishonesty. You cant hide it . You know?

A good knolwedge makes you realise how much there is to learn. A bad education makes you think you know it all. After so many interaction with you. I discover your love for wordism and unneccasry out of the point discussion which is psychologically a reflection of what is going on in your head . And this is due to lack of meaninful feedback or a way of winning yourself back from your repeated flawed logic and beaten to stupor sense .clearly, it is a clear indication that you are ignorant about the subject of the discussion. But yet still want to make a point.

I will even say being ignorant is not the problem here, but failing to recognise your own ignorance which is limiting you from liberating to knowledge

Maybe you are just mundane single minded simple dence or Maybe you re on awhole differnt level.

Vaxx dont argue with you but play with your inteligence. You only argue when you see the person is speaking sense.. the fact that you are asking me to explain the provided link i submitted speak volume of your present condition.

Consult a psychotherapist on how you can improve it or correct this deficiency

Buda( your response to vaxx post always made vaxx feel grateful that vaxx is not like YOU .

Don't worry. You'd be back to talking to yourself.

budaatum:
Don't worry. You'd be back to talking to yourself.

it doesn't matter so long you will come here to check what is the latest being posted..

I am broadcasting to all members of nairaland and guest.. so you as a single user is of no importance.

Go and continue your pseudologic in another thread .

vaxx:
we are going to use joint probability of distribution.

In events which aren't mutually exclusive, means there is some overlap. When P(A) and P(B) are added, the probability of the intersection (and) is added twice. To compensate for that double addition, the intersection then needs to be subtracted.

So the General Addition Rule

Always valid.
P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B intersection needs not to be subtracted.


Since i have been acqused of providing figure on my own. can anybody suggest one so we can use it to demonstrate our table?

When they are independent the occurrence of one event has no effect on the probability of occurrence of the second event.

Base on the percentage we bave before. The Independent EventsL(i) base on your experience in this world what is probability that God exist int he percentage of 12.(ii) Base on your experience in this world, what is the probability that God did not exist in the percentage of 12

Dont forget the formula base on the example given

P(AB) = P(A)*P(B)

P(AB)= Joint probability of events A and B occurring to gather or one after other

P(A) = Probability of event A = 1/12

P(B)= Probability of event B = 1/12



P(AB)= Joint probability of events A and B occurring to gather or one after other.

= (1/12)* (1/12)

Conclusion

When events are statistically dependent, the occurrence of one event affects the probability of occurrence of other events....

The objective of this probability is that both non existence and existence of God have the same outcome.

But can both be right or wrong at the same time (absolutely illogical).

Lets then move away from probability to other philosophical terms like indexical, lie paradox and pascal window....


The truth will soon established itself...

Lets first examine what philosophers and logicians call a “use/mention distinction”.

if i quote “I AM the Lord, your God,” i am’ quoting a true statement, because it was true as spoken by the One i am quoting . Hence religious folks were stating quoting truth base on what their religious book state.

This is not a question about religion - any atheists who feel the need to tell me how it isn’t a true statement, or never was spoken shouild challenge it.

But if i say, “I AM the Lord, your God,” then it is both false and blasphemous, because i am not God.

“I AM the Lord, your God,” spoken by God is not the same statement as, “I AM the Lord, your God,” spoken by you, because the pronoun “I” has a different referent in each sentence.

In the first sentence, it means, “God is the Lord, your God” (true), while in the second, it means, “Nairaland questioner is the Lord, your God” (false).


I brought forward this understanding because i will be using a lot of it in my analogy.

Non believer are found of this a lot and hence dpring fourth infinite regression theory.

The Rule Paradox :

If all rules have exceptions then even the rule that states that all rules have exceptions must have an exception, or the rule is proven false. But if it does have an exception the rule is also proven false, because then there is arule without an exception.

What if God is this arule?

Philosopher's have used the terms "analytic (statistical ) and "synthetic" (material)to distinguish between the senses in which something can be true, as we have employed here. but this is problematic for the reason that though propositional systems are mental constructs, the mind and its mental constructs are still a part of reality. It's a rather contrived, if sometimes useful, distinction. Mathematicians, for instance, deal with non-trivial "analytic truth" every day and their discoveries are just that: discoveries.

But there is one big difference: confirmation isn't applicable in building empirical knowledge. We can't just go through and check that everything conforms properly because we don't have a set of axioms or a definition for reality, so to speak; we can only guess and check. And even then, no matter how many times we check, we can never be sure it will be valid the next time we check —this is called the problem of induction.(google up).

We are still on empiricism. Some people claim not until they grap hold of the truth, they will never believe it.

Empiricism( which is refer to objectivism) is hold as the only source of truth by some people. They even go further that the tbe truth must be unanimously accepted.

Little they know, this is paradox on its own.

To understand this, lets move further back to ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted. This reasoning sounds counterintuitive, but the legislators of the time had noticed that unanimous agreement often indicates the presence of systemic error in the judicial process, even if the exact nature of the error is yet to be discovered. They intuitively reasoned that when something seems too good to be true, most likely a mistake was made

Let see how it apply to science, philosophy and mathematics .

Science..

Theory and experiment go hand in hand and must support each other. In every experiment there is always 'noise,' and we must therefore expect some error. In the history of science there are a number of famous experiments where the results were 'too good to be true.' There are many examples that have been coverd in controversy over the years, and the most famous are Millikan's oil drop experiment for determining the charge on the electron and Mendel's plant breeding experiments. If results are too clean and do not contain expected noise and outliers, then we can be led to suspect a form of confirmation bias introduced by an experimenter who cherry-picks the data.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

Philosophy

is related to the Duhem-Quine hypothesis, which states that it is not possible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, but rather hypotheses are always tested as a group. For instance, an experiment tests not only a certain phenomenon, but also the correction function of the experimental tools. In the paradox of unanimity, it's the methods (the "auxiliary hypotheses" that fail, and in turn reduce the confidence in the result .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

Mathematics

Using the Bayesian analysis, which can be understood in a simplistic way by looking at a biased coin. If a biased coin is designed to land on heads 55% of the time, then you would be able to tell after recording enough coin tosses that heads comes up more often than tails. The results would not indicate that the laws of probability for a binary system have changed, but that this particular system has failed. In a similar way, getting a large group of unanimous witnesses is so unlikely, according to the laws of probability, that it's more likely that the system is unreliable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

These postulation shows we 're far less certain than we think. So it is paradoxical to wait for flawless evidence of God. It certainly not realistic nor rational.. Imagine APC winning next year election, with unanimous votes.. should that ever happen ,PDP would be led to suspect a systemic bias caused by vote rigging. Even when apc won last year election, pdp stills had some votes likewise other parties.. if it happens that apc won all the votes flawlessly . Then our democracy clearly failed in that case. The take-home message is that, in a healthy democracy, when a party wins by a small margin, instead of name-calling the 'dumb' voters of the opposition, we should be celebrating the fact that the opposing voters preserved the integrity of democracy.


To be continue

Before we continue our lecture.

I have an opinion.....


The claim that there is a god is an explanatory claim. It is analogous to the claim that the sun revolves around the earth. It springs from events and observations, and seeks to explain those by use of the claim.

Fpr example, when we are evaluating an explanatory claim, we do so by looking at what phenomena it is by attempting to explain, then we look to see if there is further evidence to butteress our point and see if the proposed explanation is really the best possible one, or if there aren't better possible explanations. With the mechanism we observed, the movements of the objects in the sky, and considered which competing explanation made more sense: the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth revolves around the sun. By far, the heliocentric model is a superior model.

After reading numerous literature on the perspective of atheist, i realise they don't approach the question of theism as they do to other spheres of life , even though they are both antiquated explanations meant to describe phenomena.

So all what we believer is to show how it is overwhelmingly true that a heliocentric model explains all the relevant data in a more coherent, more parsimonious way. That's all we get . We get to say that the models that best explain our observations are "true" and the models that fail to be coherent, elegant and parsimonious are "false". Functionally, that's what true and false mean. Even atheist should be satisfy with this, unless he is being genuinely ignorant about the concept of truth and false.

My two cents....

Do Theist read atheist book?

I am suggesting some books for the theist....

Try the portable atheist by hitchens , waking up by sam harris and the good atheist by dan barker. If you like where most of the proofs against god is gotten from try atheism the case against god by George h smith.( i hope your faith will not be shaken after consuming these books)..


But first, let's try to review the most famous one "" The god delusion"" written by Richard darwkin

Dawkins in his book laid out the common arguments for the existence of God, and then proceeded to lay out the refutations for all of those arguments.

But in all honesty, Dawkins was not writing for the hard-core intellectual/philosophical individual who likes to pry apart and deconstruct all of these things....Just a relatively straightforward statement that a layman would have no trouble with.( most especially atheist like him ).


Most of his so called evidence against God will only be celibrated by unevolve mind( i am not sorry with my choice of word). Though he focus so much on Christianity.

Ok, from a religious minded and philosophical point of veiw. ""The god delusion "" book is indeed Richard darwkin delusion:""

point raised to support this are given below.

A. He misconstrued all religion as a fundamentalism which is a misrepresentation of his subject.

B. He argued a worldview termed “Ontological Naturalism” and then failed to cite a single scientific evidence to substantiate it.

C. He failed to cite a scientific definition for “delusion” from psychiatric science.

(Definition of critical terms is the first step in scientific method)

D. He mislead his readers into the errant understanding that proofs in logic are derived from statistics, and using the oxymora “almost certainly”

(rather than true or false) as an answer in his conclusion

that God—-”almost certainly” does not exist..

E. He argued that the question of the existence of God was a “scientific question” which reverses science back to its former status as “natural philosophy”. This would serve to set science back 182 years, because science does not regard supernatural or metaphysical phenomena as identities that stand in a causal relation to natural phenomena. That Dr. Dawkins did publish such a claim, served to illustrate how unscientific his thinking is.

F. The fact that Richard Dawkins insisted that even before the moment of singularity associated with The Big Bang, a “vastly superior civilization” existed which created the entire universe was so far-fetched and phantasmagoric that the hypothesis is more to be pitied than seriously examined.

Note (The points given are not originally mine, they were outsource from diffrent webpage but largely from the criticim part of the book.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

And for the fact that Richard Dawkins was sharply criticized by atheists for refusing to meet Dr. William Lane Craig in debate, served to diminish Dr. Dawkins’ credibility, substantially.

What respected scientist / philosopher had to say about meta -physical

Ok, is there is a way that one can be absolutely sure of God’s existence. In this age of science where materialistic people want empirical proof of everything?

Well, it isn’t bad, to be very critical, it’s a sign of intelligence not to take things blindly. But, materialistic people make the mistake of wanting to prove the existence of God through empiricism. The issue is, science is equipped to study the physical world. Science has a whole array of tools and instruments which are specifically designed for studying matter. However, God is not physical, but meta-physical, or spiritual. In order to study, Him, you need the proper tools and instruments, just like in science, you also need the proper tools and instruments to begin to study something.


So what is meta-physical? Is it justify as knowledge?

To be continue

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics

It define metaphhysics as branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

""Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that includes philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of math. Philosophy differed from empirical science in that evidence is required in experiments, but proof is required in philosophy"" Anonymous

. Relying on evidence in philosophy is actually a logical fallacy, for example we can consider string theory a philosophy as its mathematically sound but its not testable according to scienctific method.

So what evidence substantiate metaphysics that will not be consider logical fallacy?

The evidence for metaphysics is history and experience. You can also use intuition verified by history and experience.

Life is more than skin and bones. Life is more than biology, chemistry, and physics.

When you understand the value of justice, rights, and truth, one starts to understand the value of metaphysics.

I would also point out that the evidence that points to both minds & brains, would suggest an existence beyond physics.

As you many not know, we use metaphysics probably more than we use money. Metaphysics is a category of wisdom, knowledge, and truth about existence.

The diiffrence betwern meta-physical and spirituality. Lots of people overlap them.

Metaphysical is what is beyonds physics, which the ancient Greeks (who first used this word) understood as nature, pure and simply - or what our scientists today call "the universe" - meaning, of course, the physical universe. They do not assume that anything else exists or even could exist beyond it. So what is metaphysical is beyond modern common understanding. For example In the writings of Aristoteles, metaphysics was just a branch of philosophy in general, but metaphysicians dissent and explain that this is indeed the true knowledge of Reality because what is beyond physics (nature, or the physical universe) is the realm of the Transcendentals, which are real, while the physical universe only has a derived and relative reality (but a true existence of its own).

spirituality on the other hand is not a thing, or an object. It does not have the nature of a specimen that can be dissected and analysed. Spirituality is better thought of as a boundary-less dimension of human experience. As such, it must be admitted, it is not open to the normal methodologies of scientific investigation. It cannot completely be defined. It cannot be pinned down. So... What are we to do?

Spirituality cannot be explored using scientific methods because it involves deeply personal, subjective experiences, and in this it differs from the over-riding ambition of science: to be objective. Both are necessary and appropriate, complementary formulas for discovering ourselves, each other, our environment, the universe... and especially an enduring sense of purpose and meaning..

In essence, To discover yourself, you need spirituality. To understand the universe beyond the physical dimension, you need metaphysics . To understand the nature and its physical environs, you need science. All these are important to understand our goals in life.

How can anyone know god exists before asking the question of why god escapes being created if the universe is a creation?

davien:
How can anyone know god exists before asking the question of why god escapes being created if the universe is a creation?

By using the right tools, you can’t use tape to measure weight, atheists and some theists use wrong tools for the job : Science.

Science is the most obviously the wrong tool, Science and scientific method can never prove non-science evidence.

To prove the existence of God you have to use the tools that science is build upon, logic and reason. And using logic and reason or more specifically Argumentation theory, a cogent strong inductive argument can be derived to explain the existence of God.

The most obvious questions in that argument would be

Did Universe always existed?

What existed before Universe came about?

Did Universe came out of nothing?

Can something come out of nothing?

Did Universe came about on its own?


Seek the answers to the question, and find out the answers for yourself.


Read something here too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

vaxx:


By using the right tools, you can’t use tape to measure weight, atheists and some theists use wrong tools for the job : Science.

Science is the most obviously the wrong tool, Science and scientific method can never prove non-science evidence.

To prove the existence of God you have to use the tools that science is build upon, logic and reason. And using logic and reason or more specifically Argumentation theory, a cogent strong inductive argument can be derived to explain the existence of God.

The most obvious questions in that argument would be


Did Universe always existed?

What existed before Universe came about?

Did Universe came out of nothing?

Can something come out of nothing?

Did Universe came about on its own?



Seek the answers to the question, and find out the answers for yourself.


Read something here too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

Logic isn't all there is to science.. In fact, our ideas we like to infer as logically sound without evidence are more often plain wrong. Like the logic that a melon and an egg falling from the same height, the melon with more mass should fall first if we are to follow the experiment logically but it doesn't.. and a myriad of logically dependent points are proven counter intuitive,like light from a moving object not having an increment in speed and moving at the same speed as one emanating from a stationary one..

Logic is restrained to philosophical reasoning and not used as proofs themselves.

Let's examine those points... We know from observing the universe gradual red shifting of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, distribution of elements like deuterium(an isotope of hydrogen) and lithium, and others, that the universe as we know it had a finite beginning(13.8 billion years ago), so the universe didn't always exist.

And due to the restraints of the finite feature of light, nothing can be inferred before its emergence, so we are left to build models that predict a universe emerging from the lowest level of existence.. A vacuum.

We know that vacuums are governed by quantum fluctuations as everything else in the universe and quantum functions do enable the emergence of complex structures, mostly virtual particles, and in an unknown period, complexity arrives without the presence of any verifiable beings.

So if we are to infer a nothing as your question poses, what would it be and what features would enable a something(which we do know) to emerge from it? Is something coming out of a nothing a viable question without a nothing to examine it's properties... Because in a universe that sums up as a something and everything in it being everything, what room was there ever for a nothing to exist and what would that nothing be?

And if something does exist infinitely as an inherent property, why give it any credence without evidence or even worship it without evidence of sentience, intent or will? Faith?