₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,163,719 members, 4,714,629 topics. Date: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 at 06:55 PM

Your Beliefs - Religion (4) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Your Beliefs (1854 Views)

Atheists And Agnostics Of Nairaland, What Made You Change Your Beliefs? / 5 Old Beliefs Of Pastor Kumuyi Of Deeper Life Which He Latter Abandoned / Atheists & Theists: If Aliens Actually Exist, How Would It Affect Your Beliefs? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 8:08am On Jan 09
LordReed:


Interesting. You practically wanted to bite my head off for stating that your arguments were an appeal to intuition yet here you are stating it quite plainly.
Authentic religion often begins in this extraordinary experience of the contingency of the world; this deep sense intuition that the world exists although it doesn't have to exist.
You intuit when you consider or wonder about things especially things beyond natural. That's the point and "Begin" is the keyword here. Your intuition ends where evidence starts. Therefore, a conclusion from an evidential observation could not be said to be mere appeal to intuition; it's more than that.

I'm not against using intuition, as it provides us with our first experimental data or primary concepts/basic principles which are the primary elements and the foundation of every scientific and philosophical speculation. However, what I'm pushing back on is your attempt to make of intuition the central and fundamental element of our power of acquiring this sort of knowledge.

You seem to lack the nuance required for this type of discuss. Perhaps it's a waste of my work time explaining a bunch when you only conveniently use blanket statements to counter my argument instead of point by point constructive [counter] argument.
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 8:12am On Jan 09
9inches:


You intuit when you consider or wonder about things especially things beyond natural. That's the point and "Begin" is the keyword here. Your intuition ends where evidence starts. Therefore, a conclusion from an evidential observation could not be said to be mere appeal to intuition; it's more than that.

I'm not against using intuition, as it provides us with our first experimental data or primary concepts/basic principles which are the primary elements and the foundation of every scientific and philosophical speculation. However, what I'm pushing back on is your attempt to make of intuition the central and fundamental element of our power of acquiring this sort of knowledge.

You seem to lack the nuance required for this type of discuss. Perhaps it's a waste of my work time explaining a bunch when you only conveniently use blanket statements to counter my argument instead of point by point constructive [counter] argument.

You present no evidence so where was the intuition supposed to end?
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 8:27am On Jan 09
HellVictorinho:

And what is a hole to you?
A hollow place in a solid body or surface.
Re: Your Beliefs by Zodiac61(m): 9:26am On Jan 09
9inches:
Jeez! Yet another god-of-the-gaps-plus-yeti-theory straw man! If you actually asked questions for clarification, you would not have embarrassed yourself this way thinking you are making counter argument.

God is a general term used to refer to what (people believe) exists before time and the universe and the source of every other creation. You are at liberty to use a different term. I understand the term "God" triggers folks like you but what else would you want me to use?

I wasn't making the god of the gaps argument at all. God is not "a thing" or "an individual" or some item within the natural world, rather God can be described as ipsum esse subsistens (the subsistent act of "to be" itself). God is that great ocean of existence from which the
world in its entirety comes, not something in the world that has to take worldly attributes for your sake just so you can understand.

This is different from god of the gaps of the ancient Greek and Roman myths or myths of any culture really. Those type of gods we can say legitimately have been indeed eliminated by the modern science. When atheists say the advancement of science pushes religion to retreats to ever smaller bits of intellectual turf, they they are talking about the god of the gaps, NOT the God christians and the likes talk about.

With our scientific equipment and our great scientific spirit scientists have explored the heavens and the mountaintops and the depths of the ocean and indeed haven't found supreme beings around, more to it the modern physical sciences have managed to explain most physical phenomena, so we don't have to appeal to extraneous causes of supernatural divine causes.

God is not some event or phenomena that can be examined by the physical sciences. He's not the subject or object of an experiment. Even in principle, the sciences can't eliminate God nor be able to address the question of God. The advancement of the sciences can never threaten authentic religion. That's why it's so silly for people to say "produce evidence" for God... You only do that for a Yeti theory, the "produce evidence for Big Foot" type of argument... You don't produce evidence like that for the creator of the entire universe. You don't use the scientific method to get at questions of God... it's simply a category mistake!

The true God

Authentic religion often begins in this extraordinary experience of the contingency of the world; this deep sense intuition that the world exists although it doesn't have to exist. Things are, but they don't have to be; they don't carry within themselves the reason for their own existence. Take a camera for example, it exists certainly but it did not exist through the power of its own essence; it exists because of a whole slew of engineers and designers and scientists. It exists because of its molecular structure, its atomic structure, its subatomic structure... If you take those away, there won't be any camera. The point is it's surrounded extrinsically and it's grounded intrinsically in all sorts of causes that bring it into being that allow it to be.

Now if you keep thinking in that direction, all the things I just mentioned all those designers and scientists and
technicians, all those lower levels of physical reality are themselves contingent - they don't contain within themselves the reason for their being. An endless appeal to contingent causes is not going to answer our question of why that camera exists. We know there is
some reality whose very nature is 'to be'. That infinite source of reality which grounds and gives rise to the whole nexus of conditioned things.

In church liturgy we say, "in you we live and move and have our being..." and that's the poetic expression of this philosophical
intuition... that's God! That's the true God - the non conditioned and non-contingent ground of contingency. In religious language, that's the creator of the heavens and the earth. You see again, that's the distinction between God and anything in the world, between the properly supernatural and anything within nature. It's why the sciences, try as they might, cannot even begin to address this question.

This is not any sort of magical thinking or superstition. Simply start by asking the really vital questions: why is there something rather than
nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there the realm of nature? Why is there the nexus of contingent things. That's the nursing question you should be asking, not trying in futility to score cheap argument points on nairaland.

On a serious note, you are guilty of the things you accusenothers of. You say the gods of Greek and Roman (and indeed, gods generally) of mythology have been eliminated by science. But you exclude the Christian God. Why? Is there any stronger evidence for it than any other God? Do you say that the Islamic God or the Hindu gods have likewise been eliminated? I bet you will. Seems like special pleading to me.

As I said, your evidence for god is intuition. Well, I intuit that there are small fairies living behind my house. I never see them, but I know they are there. When I talk to them, they don't talk back, but I know they hear me and answer my prayers. The other day I lost my car keys and I prayed to them and found them. You see what I have done there. No different from what you do. Yet you will no doubt say I am crazy, if I truly believed that nonsense.

The moment you start talking about Authentic Religion, you begin to lose the argument. What is "authentic religion"? Who defines what that even means? Who are you to claim that your religion is more authentic than someone else's? How much arrogance is contained in that phrase "authentic religion"?

When I accused you of a "God of the gaps" argument, you accused me of making a straw man argument. Guess What? You have done it again. You ask "Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there realm of nature?" Legitimate questions to ask, but your answer is ...because God.

My friend, your thinking is seriously muddled.
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 10:36am On Jan 09
Zodiac61:


Others have said it - you need to try harder. What I read from you is word salad.
No matter what you say, your God is the theist God.
Mumbo jumbo does not turn superstitious beliefs into reality.
Your idea of reality is ... intuition!!!!
If I was a believer, I would say "God help us from confused people like you".
Brilliant argument. Bravo! You demolished my argument. Congratulations bro.

Next.
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 10:45am On Jan 09
LordReed:


You present no evidence so where was the intuition supposed to end?
The reality of an endless appeal to contingent causes is one of them. We know with utmost certainty that there is a nexus/creator/originator for contingent things including what we see and touch.

Do you agree the following is a true statement, [b]"anything that has a beginning cannot create itself"?

Do you also agree that the "creator of anything with a beginning cannot have a beginning itself"?
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 10:51am On Jan 09
9inches:
The reality of an endless appeal to contingent causes is one of them. We know with utmost certainty that there is a nexus/creator/originator for contingent things including what we see and touch.

We know no such thing. What we have evidence for is that the universe is a result of natural processes, we have no evidence of universe creating beings.
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 11:34am On Jan 09
Zodiac61:


On a serious note, you are guilty of the things you accusenothers of. You say the gods of Greek and Roman (and indeed, gods generally) of mythology have been eliminated by science. But you exclude the Christian God. Why? Is there any stronger evidence for it than any other God?
Do you know about ancient Greek and Roman myths? What do you know about their belief in gods?

Do you say that the Islamic God or the Hindu gods have likewise been eliminated? I bet you will. Seems like special pleading to me.
No, but do you want me to say that for you, solely to help you make your argument? Just ask and it could be done! cool

As I said, your evidence for god is intuition. Well, I intuit that there are small fairies living behind my house. I never see them, but I know they are there. When I talk to them, they don't talk back, but I know they hear me and answer my prayers. The other day I lost my car keys and I prayed to them and found them. You see what I have done there. No different from what you do. Yet you will no doubt say I am crazy, if I truly believed that nonsense.[quote]I see what you've done. It's called a straw man argument. You didn't get this type of hallucinations from any of my statements so far. Refer to my actual argument about God. But hey, you have your right to make up stuff that I never said. It cute. Again, bavo!

The moment you start talking about Authentic Religion, you begin to lose the argument. What is "authentic religion"? Who defines what that even means? Who are you to claim that your religion is more authentic than someone else's? How much arrogance is contained in that phrase "authentic religion"?

When I accused you of a "God of the gaps" argument, you accused me of making a straw man argument. Guess What? You have done it again. You ask "Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there realm of nature?" Legitimate questions to ask, but your answer is ...because God.

My friend, your thinking is seriously muddled.
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 11:58am On Jan 09
Zodiac61:


On a serious note, you are guilty of the things you accusenothers of. You say the gods of Greek and Roman (and indeed, gods generally) of mythology have been eliminated by science. But you exclude the Christian God. Why? Is there any stronger evidence for it than any other God?
Do you know about ancient Greek and Roman myths? What do you know about their belief in gods?

Do you say that the Islamic God or the Hindu gods have likewise been eliminated? I bet you will. Seems like special pleading to me.
No, but do you want me to say that for you, solely to help you make your argument? Just ask and it could be done! cool

As I said, your evidence for god is intuition. Well, I intuit that there are small fairies living behind my house. I never see them, but I know they are there. When I talk to them, they don't talk back, but I know they hear me and answer my prayers. The other day I lost my car keys and I prayed to them and found them. You see what I have done there. No different from what you do. Yet you will no doubt say I am crazy, if I truly believed that nonsense.
I see what you've done. It's called a straw man argument. You didn't get this type of hallucinations from any of my statements so far. Refer to my actual argument about God. But hey, you have your right to make up stuff that I never said. It cute. Again, bavo!

The moment you start talking about Authentic Religion, you begin to lose the argument. What is "authentic religion"? Who defines what that even means? Who are you to claim that your religion is more authentic than someone else's? How much arrogance is contained in that phrase "authentic religion"?
Objectivity does! Truth is absolute; it does not matter what any side is claiming. Truth doesn't change itself to accommodate your claim or my claim. And because it is absolute, only one of two or more contradicting truth claims will be true. If two or more people have contradicting claims, only one of them would be right. All of them could be wrong though but not more than one would be right.

Use your dictionary to check what authentic means. Here's not the place for such.

Arrogance is fine by me, as long as it doesn't hurt truth. Every religion makes exclusive claims as to why theirs is the one, the correct way. Are you such a snowflake that an exclusive claim triggers you?

When I accused you of a "God of the gaps" argument, you accused me of making a straw man argument. Guess What? You have done it again. You ask "Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there realm of nature?" Legitimate questions to ask, but your answer is ...because God.

My friend, your thinking is seriously muddled.
God of the gaps argument is for scientifically illiterates. Those questions haven't been touched by science let alone answering them. Science does not answer the question of "why", go and check!
Now we know whose thinking is seriously muddled.
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 12:02pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


We know no such thing. What we have evidence for is that the universe is a result of natural processes, we have no evidence of universe creating beings.
Oo boy! There's no evidence that the universe began with "natural processes". Natural processes have origin, mr scientist. cry
Re: Your Beliefs by HellVictorinho(m): 12:11pm On Jan 09
And, I suppose that is your definition?
In fact,you can't have a hollow place in an ordinary surface.
'Hollow'is a word that suggests depth.
And hollow places refer to deep areas.
So,the surface with an opening is not always suggestive of depth.
It only suggests depth when it is the surface of an object that is not in the form of a sheet.
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 12:15pm On Jan 09
9inches:
Oo boy! There's no evidence that the universe began with "natural processes". Natural processes have origin, mr scientist. cry

Quite true, we have no evidence for how the universe began but how it operates has been observed to be by natural processes and extrapolating to the beginning gives that inference.

You on the other hand have nothing in the way of evidence for your god.
Re: Your Beliefs by HellVictorinho(m): 12:17pm On Jan 09
9inches:
Oo boy! There's no evidence that the universe began with "natural processes". Natural processes have origin, mr scientist. cry
Check out the 'Timing of Existence'.
It is a topic I created and I trashed this thing out in what I posted under this topic.
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 12:21pm On Jan 09
9inches:


Do you agree the following is a true statement, [b]"anything that has a beginning cannot create itself"?

Do you also agree that the "creator of anything with a beginning cannot have a beginning itself"?

The word create is kind of a cheat. It implies an act of purpose. Nevertheless we've observed things that come into existence without cause, virtual particles.

Your 2nd statement already fails for humans, rephrase?
Re: Your Beliefs by HellVictorinho(m): 12:26pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


The word create is kind of a cheat. It implies an act of purpose. Nevertheless we've observed things that come into existence without cause, virtual particles.

Your 2nd statement already fails for humans, rephrase?
You can't convince this guy.
He is a bonafide creationist.
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 12:38pm On Jan 09
HellVictorinho:

You can't convince this guy.
He is a bonafide creationist.

He is a creationist? I didn't know that. The Catholic church doesn't oppose BBT or evolution as far I know.
Re: Your Beliefs by HellVictorinho(m): 1:01pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


He is a creationist? I didn't know that. The Catholic church doesn't oppose BBT or evolution as far I know.
He is more of a creationist than anything else.
I made him to admit this in one of our arguments.
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 1:03pm On Jan 09
HellVictorinho:

He is more of a creationist than anything else.
I made him to admit this in one of our arguments.

Wow.
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 2:53pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


Quite true, we have no evidence for how the universe began but how it operates has been observed to be by natural processes and extrapolating to the beginning gives that inference.

You on the other hand have nothing in the way of evidence for your god.
Well, your natural processes is one more evidence.
Re: Your Beliefs by budaatum: 2:56pm On Jan 09
9inches:

Do you agree the following is a true statement, [b]"anything that has a beginning cannot create itself"?

This is a difficult question! My first instinct is to say, Yes, "anything that has a beginning cannot create itself". A creator must create anything that has been created.

I'm just glad you never said "everything that exists must be created".

9inches:
Do you also agree that the "creator of anything with a beginning cannot have a beginning itself"?
No. The creator of anything with a beginning must also have a beginning! How else could it possibly come into existence if it did not at one point in time come in to existence?

And don't give me "it was always in existence", unless you precede it with "I believe"?
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 2:59pm On Jan 09
9inches:
Well, your natural processes is one more evidence.

LMFAO! Na wa.
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 3:07pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


The word create is kind of a cheat. It implies an act of purpose. Nevertheless we've observed things that come into existence without cause, virtual particles.

Your 2nd statement already fails for humans, rephrase?
That's right. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. That includes virtual particles.
Re: Your Beliefs by budaatum: 3:10pm On Jan 09
9inches:

That's right. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. That includes virtual particles.
And creators of things!
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 3:15pm On Jan 09
9inches:

That's right. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. That includes virtual particles.

What is the cause of virtual particles?
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 4:54pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


The word create is kind of a cheat. It implies an act of purpose. Nevertheless we've observed things that come into existence without cause, virtual particles.

Your 2nd statement already fails for humans, rephrase?
Right. I was busy when I sent it without review.
Here:
1. Everything that has a beginning cannot exist out of itself"?
2. The source of everything cannot have a beginning.
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 5:39pm On Jan 09
9inches:
Right. I was busy when I sent it without review.
Here:
1. Everything that has a beginning cannot exist out of itself"?
2. The source of everything cannot have a beginning.

1. Depends on what you mean by out of itself. Isotopes of elements are virtually created from theirself.

2. The source of everything cannot be the source of itself so its not the source of everything.
Re: Your Beliefs by HellVictorinho(m): 6:24pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


1. Depends on what you mean by out of itself. Isotopes of elements are virtually created from theirself.

2. The source of everything cannot be the source of itself so its not the source of everything.
You can only come close to becoming a creationist by replying this guy when he asks his creationism-based questions.
Re: Your Beliefs by LordReed(m): 6:58pm On Jan 09
HellVictorinho:

You can only come close to becoming a creationist by replying this guy when he asks his creationism-based questions.

Why would that be the case?
Re: Your Beliefs by budaatum: 7:40pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


Why would that be the case?
Yeah, why would that be the case, Hell? It's not a exactly a catching communicable disease, you know!
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 8:34pm On Jan 09
budaatum:

This is a difficult question! My first instinct is to say, Yes, "anything that has a beginning cannot create itself". A creator must create anything that has been created.

I'm just glad you never said "everything that exists must be created".


No. The creator of anything with a beginning must also have a beginning! How else could it possibly come into existence if it did not at one point in time come in to existence?

And don't give me "it was always in existence", unless you precede it with "I believe"?
I believe it was always in existence. Amen. undecided
Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 8:44pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


LMFAO! Na wa.
Laugh well.

1 Like

Re: Your Beliefs by 9inches(m): 8:48pm On Jan 09
LordReed:


What is the cause of virtual particles?
Do the particles exist outside the universe that has cause?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)

Similarities Between Evolution And Religion / Pastor Who Called You ? / Did Jesus Die On A Cross Or A Stake?

(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: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 203
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.