Well Aribisala there is no point derailing this thread. I would like to leave you a link though, but i am typing from a pad and I find difficult to post links. Just google these words - do you realize that we do not exist rossike nairaland - and you will find a thread where this matter was discussed extensively. I hope it is useful. Take care.

pastor if i do not share your worldview then you must label me??

aribisala0:

pastor if i do not share your worldview then you must label me??

Even if you share it, will I not still label you?

really i don't know know and i don't care.
hold your side i hold mine

You don't care enough to spend all day on Nairaland. Hold your side unless you have someone special to hold it for you. If you don't have someone no one will blame you for self massage.

not that it is any of your concern but there is a proramme called windows that enables me to multitask. if i spend the whole year on nairaland does your family head pay my bills??
you can play with yourself all you like but i do not want to know so keep your sordid secrets to yourself.
you just jump in from who knows where and start calling me names.
who unleashed you.
please

Ol boy, You don't have to make any excuses to me. If you like spend an entire century on NL.

I don't know where you saw rope on my neck that you are asking who unleashed me. Maybe you just presume since you and all in your family have been tethered since the day of your birth.

Men, either there is a big misunderstanding or you are hallucinating because from the time you posted about worldview and labelling it seems that you are discussing some phantom events. Either way, I find myself enjoying this yabbing session. You are so yabbable. Please stick around.

Aribisala. Pastor did not call you names. His reference to Fela Kuti was a reference to the song "Beasts of no nation" wherein Fela described Political leaders as 'Animals in HUMAN skin." He said that as a referenvce to your comment about the man who believed all Political leaders are Lizards in Human Skin. So lighten up!

By the way, I am now before a proper PC and here is the link i referred to earlier -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371493.0.html

Be sure to read all the contributions. The thread is quite short by the way, so that should be no problem.

Note particularly the contributions of Prizm, M_Nwankwo and Ibrahim B against Rossike's assertions.

Deep Sight:
Excellent. I am happy we agree on this.
This does not apply when one is speaking of the ultimate cause. The very term "ultimate cause" logicaly denotes a single final cause.

To explain: the four grand parents you mentioned are not an ultimate origin since they also have origins. If we were to limit the causative chain to life on earth, the ultimate cause would be perhaps that single molecule that existed in whatever pre-biotic soup life was generated from. but that is nevertheless just a rough example because in reality even such molecules in turn had a cause. When we speak of the ultimate cause, any multiplicity would in itself logically contradict the word "ultimate." An ultimate cause is perforce singular.

If we are limiting the causal chain to the earth, then you need to know that there wasn't really a point in time where there was a single molecule that existed on its own. Think of it this way, as the earth formed, there wasn't a single particle that you could point at and say aha here is the first particle that formed the earth because the earth formed by accumulation of particles that steadily got larger under the influence of gravity. So in this pre-biotic soup, due to the laws of mass action etc, we do not have a single molecule deciding the way things should be instead we have constellations of molecules.
In a similar fashion, why could it not be a group of Gods with equal powers? I think you also need to consider that if you're implying a particular entity, ultimate does not necessarily have to be one. It may be a group that decides to act together or it may simply be an invention for ease of discussion.

Deep Sight:
I would have very much liked to set out in further detail the philosophical rationale for the necessity of an ultimate cause being perforce singular, but i have noticed that you do not like philosophical discourses. You perhaps disdain such as "unscientific."

You're free to do so. I simply do not like it when people use this as a basis for drifting away from the original point of the discussion. And of course I generally prefer it when a person clearly explains the terms they use.

Deep Sight:
Floating castles do not exist as we know. This alone shows up the flaw in your thinking. You trace such to no cause since they do not exist: that reveals that if there was no cause, then similarly the world would not exist.

No. Recall that that example was in reference to tracing origins and the number of entities behind them. The question is how many entities are behind the existence of the universe? Why assume one when there may be none or four?

Deep Sight:
You thus inadvertently accede to the existence of a Cause for all things - and stretching the logic further, since YOU claim that time had a beggining, then its cause could not be itself, and as such must be timeless. A timeless thing is eternal and as such you therefore accept the existence of an eternal cause of all things.

Unbeknownst to you, you are already on the cusp of being a Theist or Deist.

Sorry but we already have a thread going on this issue of time. I don't want to rehash my arguments here. I'm on the cusp? Well I didn't know that.

Amujale:
. . .

Oba ti nje Olu
Oba ti nje Olorun Oba
Oba ti nje Olodumare
Oba dugbedugbe bi igi adaro
Oba to tuwoka se  oun gbogbo fun awon eleran ara
Adeda
Aseda
Alewilese
Oba to gba agbara lowo alagbara
Oba to gba'de lowo Alade
Oloruko egbagbeje
Oba ti mbe ki bebe fun ara ti e to d'aiye
Bebe Nla
Al'obalebioro
Oba Ajiki
Oba Awoki
Oba Afaki
Oba Arinki
Oba Asaki
Oba Agunki
Oba Akoki
Oba Atoki
Okiki Ola
Okiki Oola
Afunilounjemap'ebi
Asorefunimagb'ege
Aj'oruko gbogbo, nibi gbogbo, l'ojo gbogbo
Agbomatepa,
Adagba-maparo-oye
Awuwomasegbe,
Agbomatepa

"Oba ti a ko le ki tan",

Indeed, Awamaridi*


* Hmmm, come to think of it, can it be said that Olodumare as awamaridi is a concept not known to Christianity or other religions?

Let us be factual.

thehomer:

If we are limiting the causal chain to the earth, then you need to know that there wasn't really a point in time where there was a single molecule that existed on its own. Think of it this way, as the earth formed, there wasn't a single particle that you could point at and say aha here is the first particle that formed the earth because the earth formed by accumulation of particles that steadily got larger under the influence of gravity. So in this pre-biotic soup, due to the laws of mass action etc, we do not have a single molecule deciding the way things should be instead we have constellations of molecules.

Why deliberately take the example out of context? You are all too aware that I stated that simply to show you that a grand parent cannot be an ultimate cause because he/ she also has causes which caused him/ her to come to exist within the causative chain. I also told you clearly that my refernce to molecules is only a crude example to show you that there are causes more distant than your grand parents.

Now, what is to be noted is this: within the causative chain, those molecules will also have a cause. So we need to ascertain what caused them in the search for an ultimate cause within this world.

There is no need however to belabour an example which is at best crude and could lead us into errors. It is better to state that so long as you have multiple factors, such multiple factors are not an ultimate cause: they will in turn have a cause because an ultimate cause is by definition singular.

In a similar fashion, why could it not be a group of Gods with equal powers? I think you also need to consider that if you're implying a particular entity, ultimate does not necessarily have to be one. It may be a group that decides to act together or it may simply be an invention for ease of discussion.

I am not going to bother myself with the details as to why an ultimate cause must be singular. In pure and strict logic the word "ultimate" is inconsistent with multiplicity. It denotes singularity. Especially within the context of a causative chain. Maybe it misses you that even the big bang is said to commence from a singularity. This is not surprising because anything which is the ultimate commencement point can only be singular. I don’t know how else to break that down for you.

Nevertheless we needn't bother: because you describe yourself as an atheist: and if you wish to make an argument that there may be many gods instead of one god, then that already takes you out of the realm of atheism. Are you now making a case for Poly-Theism? Because if you are, I am comfortable with that: to the extent that it already takes you out of the realm of atheism.

As such I will not bother to argue against your "many-gods" argumentation. I will be comfortable to simply say - okay there are many gods. We are happy with that. That position will still contradict atheism, which holds that there are NO gods!

No. Recall that that example was in reference to tracing origins and the number of entities behind them. The question is how many entities are behind the existence of the universe? Why assume one when there may be none or four?

Please do not attempt to be dishonest simply because the rug is drawn off your feet! You queried what the cause of floating castles are, in an obvious attempt to show that there could be no cause for such a thing for the precise reason that such a thing is not known to exist. This logically shows that you accept that for things to exist, they require a cause. You also insist that time had a beginning. If it did, then it could not be its own cause, as that violates all rules of logic. Thus its cause must perforce be timeless, and that leaves you with a timeless or eternal cause of all things.

This is frighteningly close to my own Deist perspective: and as such I declared that you do not know or properly understand yourself to be a strict atheist.

Enigma:


Indeed, Awamaridi*


* Hmmm, come to think of it, can it be said that Olodumare as awamaridi is a concept not known to Christianity or other religions?

Hi Enigma. Please what is "awamaridi." Cheers/ thanks.

^^^ In basic terms

"awamaridi" = unfathomable, unsearchable, surpasses all understanding (etc eiusdem generis)

Deep Sight:

Let us be factual.

Why deliberately take the example out of context? You are all too aware that I stated that simply to show you that a grand parent cannot be an ultimate cause because he/ she also has causes which caused him/ her to come to exist within the causative chain. I also told you clearly that my refernce to molecules is only a crude example to show you that there are causes more distant than your grand parents.

Now, what is to be noted is this: within the causative chain, those molecules will also have a cause. So we need to ascertain what caused them in the search for an ultimate cause within this world.

There is no need however to belabour an example which is at best crude and could lead us into errors. It is better to state that so long as you have multiple factors, such multiple factors are not an ultimate cause: they will in turn have a cause because an ultimate cause is by definition singular.

Do you consider purely physical laws causes? Or by causes, do you refer to a mind?

Deep Sight:

I am not going to bother myself with the details as to why an ultimate cause must be singular. In pure and strict logic the word "ultimate" is inconsistent with multiplicity. It denotes singularity. Especially within the context of a causative chain. Maybe it misses you that even the big bang is said to commence from a singularity. This is not surprising because anything which is the ultimate commencement point can only be singular. I don’t know how else to break that down for you.

In logic? I think you actually do need to present the details because I'm not sure about how one derives that an ultimate refers to one entity. It is not called a singularity because it is singular but due to its mathematical mathematical nature. This is why we can also refer to black holes as singularities.

Deep Sight:

Nevertheless we needn't bother: because you describe yourself as an atheist: and if you wish to make an argument that there may be many gods instead of one god, then that already takes you out of the realm of atheism. Are you now making a case for Poly-Theism? Because if you are, I am comfortable with that: to the extent that it already takes you out of the realm of atheism.

No I do not describe myself as an atheist, I do not label myself at all.
The point of that sort of argument is to grant certain things to still demonstrate that the conclusion is still unsupported. So, that argument was just to demonstrate that even if one were to accept some sort of floating mind behind the universe, one cannot say how many they are.

Deep Sight:

As such I will not bother to argue against your "many-gods" argumentation. I will be comfortable to simply say - okay there are many gods. We are happy with that. That position will still contradict atheism, which holds that there are NO gods!

I think you will need to argue against it since it seems you wish to close your mind to the possibility that there may be no minds behind it. If you cannot clearly show why there must be one, then you really have no basis for saying it must be one.

Deep Sight:

Please do not attempt to be dishonest simply because the rug is drawn off your feet! You queried what the cause of floating castles are, in an obvious attempt to show that there could be no cause for such a thing for the precise reason that such a thing is not known to exist. This logically shows that you accept that for things to exist, they require a cause. You also insist that time had a beginning. If it did, then it could not be its own cause, as that violates all rules of logic. Thus its cause must perforce be timeless, and that leaves you with a timeless or eternal cause of all things.

I am not attempting to be dishonest. Remember what I said was that there were some [b]entities [/b]behind one but not the other.
What do you consider a cause? Can physical laws be causes? Or are causes limited to entities?
We've gone through this issue of time. If you feel like going through it again, please resurrect the previous thread.

Deep Sight:

This is frighteningly close to my own Deist perspective: and as such I declared that you do not know or properly understand yourself to be a strict atheist.

Is it? What is a strict atheist? Because the way I understand these things is that one either believes something or they do not. Sorry but don't confuse the granting of certain premises to show how an argument fails for actually accepting an argument.

Enigma:

^^^ In basic terms

"awamaridi" = unfathomable, unsearchable, surpasses all understanding (etc eiusdem generis)

Well that's cool, and thanks.

But doesn't even the xtian perspective denote God as unfathomable, unsearchable, and surpasing all understanding?

Easy on sui generis, non lawyers may not get it!

Mr Homer, are you serious at all?
Any way, i have a few questions for you on the "Time" thread

Deep Sight:

Mr Homer, are you serious at all?
Any way, i have a few questions for you on the "Time" thread

Yes I am. Why do you ask?

Deep Sight:

Well that's cool, and thanks.

But doesn't even the xtian perspective denote God as unfathomable, unsearchable, and surpasing all understanding?

Easy on sui generis, non lawyers may not get it!

Was that not my original rhetorical question?

Just to add: it seems the arguments here are actually parallel -- a form of shadow boxing.

First there is an underlying assumption that there is a "god" or there are "gods"; an atheistic premise would be a waste of time here. Then it seems to me that some are arguing that there are different gods e.g. Olodumare, Yahweh, Allah, etc; whereas others are arguing that there is a Supreme Being - the one God - whom some call Yahweh, whom others call Olodumare and whom yet others call Allah etc etc

Unless one denies that there is a Supreme Being, apart from academic exercises investigating various and differing conceptions/perceptions ("ontologies"   ) of the Supreme Being, what does it really matter whether some choose to call him Yahweh, Allah, Olodumare?

thehomer:
Huh? The concept of lesser Gods was not limited to Greek mythology. This concept was also present in various polytheistic religions. I don't see the misinterpretation you're claiming.

I'm afraid i will have to disagree, firstly the concept of lesser gods refers mainly to the Greek mythology as the relation between Zeus and other divinities e.g Zeus's brother Hades e.t.c. This does not fit in with the Yoruba theogany, Orisha in no way or form aspires to be such in qualification. In a sense i think it is a case of lost in translation. If i'm not mistaken, the translation to the term "lesser gods" reads as "awon god kekere"; now to suggest that is indeed laughable, not to say quite offensive.

Moreover, it would not suprise me if this notion actualy was born out of our(mankind) to try an equate ourselves with the Almighty. For instance, i've heard instances of this particular kind of language being used: Do you know Edson Arantes do Nascimento is a football god?. Now do you see what i'm getting at. It stems from this type of thought process.

The nearest translation to Orisha would probably be as i suggested earlier, divinity divine entitiy or simply a God.

Amujale:

I'm afraid i will have to disagree, firstly the concept of lesser gods refers mainly to the Greek mythology as the relation between Zeus and other divinities e.g Zeus's brother Hades e.t.c. This does not fit in with the Yoruba theogany, Orisha in no way or form aspires to be such in qualification. In a sense i think it is a case of lost in translation. If i'm not mistaken, the translation to the term "lesser gods" reads as "awon god kekere"; now to suggest that is indeed laughable, not to say quite offensive.

Moreover, it would not suprise me if this notion actualy was born out of our(mankind) to try an equate ourselves with the Almighty. For instance, i've heard instances of this particular kind of language being used: Do you know Edson Arantes do Nascimento is a football god?. Now do you see what i'm getting at. It stems from this type of thought process.

Look at it this way. Olodumare is a God. Esu is a God. Which one of them is greater?

The nearest translation to Orisha would probably be as i suggested earlier, divinity, divine entitiy or simply a God.

I dont know the Esu you are refering to, but the Esu i know is Legba and is not a god but an Orisha, a God.

Maybe you are refering to Satani, if that is the case then i'm sure our in house xtians and muslims can tell you all you need to know about him.

Olodumare is not [b]a [/b]God because that would imply there are many. Olodumare IS the infinite state, the Almighty God.

Amujale:

The nearest translation to Orisha would probably be as i suggested earlier: hero, divine minister, diety, divinity or spirit.
I dont know the Esu you are refering to, but the Esu i know is Legba and is no god but an Orisha. Maybe you are refering to Satani, if that is the case then i'm sure our in house xtians and muslims can tell you all you need to know about him.

Olodumare is not [b]a [/b]God because that would imply there are many. Olodumare IS the infinite state

Are deities not Gods?

thehomer:

Are deities not Gods?

Given that the title of this thread reads[b] Are Olodumare And "God/allah" The Same Entity/concept/word?[/b], then my reponse would be that it depends who you are asking, for me NO a deity isnt. When i refered to an Orisha being prone to be addresed as a deity, i was refering to dema-deity in particular.  In the spirit of repetition, there are Orisha and there are Orisha. Due to the lack of precise translation, it is acceptable to address a dema-deity as Orisha as it is  to one of the divinities. Yet in the basics of things, the term Orisha is reserved for the primordial entities; and if i may second guess your next question. In this context, is divinity not the same thing as the English notion of God? No it is not. What is the french for Vavavoom?

thehomer:

No I do not describe myself as an atheist, I do not label myself at all.
The point of that sort of argument is to grant certain things to still demonstrate that the conclusion is still unsupported. So, that argument was just to demonstrate that even if one were to accept some sort of floating mind behind the universe, one cannot say how many they are.

Firstly, the thread is not meant to be a platform for some sort of conlusion that hasnt already been established.  Secondly,  if you dont believe that there is an Almighty being, then searching for answers towards such philosophy seems to me to be just as pointless as emptying the chamber of a loaded gun into ether and expecting to somehow hit a target.

And finaly, i ask you this,  do YOU conceed to the possibility of conscience?

Amujale:

Given that the title of this thread reads[b] Are Olodumare And "God/allah" The Same Entity/concept/word?[/b], then my reponse would be that it depends who you are asking, for me NO a deity isnt. When i refered to an Orisha being prone to be addresed as a deity, i was refering to dema-deity in particular.  In the spirit of repetition, there are Orisha and there are Orisha. Due to the lack of precise translation, it is acceptable to address a dema-deity as Orisha as it is  to one of the divinities. Yet in the basics of things, the term Orisha is reserved for the primordial entities; and if i may second guess your next question. In this context, is divinity not the same thing as the English notion of God? No it is not. What is the french for Vavavoom?

Do Jehovah and Allah have Orishas? All you're displaying is your current bias towards a particular notion because in general parlance, deities are regarded as Gods.

Amujale:

Firstly, the thread is not meant to be a platform for some sort of conlusion that hasnt already been established.  Secondly,  if you dont believe that there is an Almighty being, then searching for answers towards such philosophy seems to me to be just as pointless as emptying the chamber of a loaded gun into ether and expecting to somehow hit a target.

Not believing in something doesn't stop one from discovering whether or not it's true neither is it a reason for not finding out why it has such extreme influence on people.

Amujale:

And finaly, i ask you this,  do YOU conceed to the possibility of conscience?

The possibility? We do have a conscience.

thehomer:

The possibility? We do have a conscience.

Well then, i rest my case.

thehomer:

Not believing in something doesn't stop one from discovering whether or not it's true neither is it a reason for not finding out why it has such extreme influence on people.

Well keep your fascination, but this isnt about discovering whether YOU believe it to be true or not.

thehomer:

Do Jehovah and Allah have Orishas?.

Well since you brought that up, why dont you answer it  yourself or was that meant as a Rhetoirical question?

thehomer:

All you're displaying is your current bias towards a particular notion because in general parlance, deities are regarded as Gods

Are they? let me remind you that the definition is determined by the context in which it lies and not the other way round. It seems to me that you're the first i've come accross that presents this point of view; this is merely your opinion and you're free to hold it but please if you're trying to debunk anyone elses you're merely wasting your time. A bicycle is rider-friendly because it has wheels; a bicycle doesnt have wheels because it is rider-friendly.

The truth speaks for itself, whether you choose to accept or not, Olodumare has no rival, nothing even comes close.

Meanwhile, you still havent answered my previous question, what is the French for Vavavoom?

Amujale:

Well then, i rest my case.

Rest your case? What is the relevance of a conscience to this discussion?

Amujale:

Well keep your fascination, but this isnt about discovering whether YOU believe it to be true or not.

It is in part.

Amujale:

Well since you brought that up, why dont you answer it  yourself or was that meant as a Rhetoirical question?

No it isn't. If Olodumare has Orishas and the others do not what does that tell you?

Amujale:

Are they? let me remind you that the definition is determined by the context in which it lies and not the other way round. It seems to me that you're the first i've come accross that presents this point of view; this is merely your opinion and you're free to hold it but please if you're trying to debunk anyone elses you're merely wasting your time. A bicycle is rider-friendly because it has wheels; a bicycle doesnt have wheels because it is rider-friendly.

I'm the first? Good. Does the context demonstrate that deities are not Gods?

Amujale:

The truth speaks for itself, whether you choose to accept or not, Olodumare has no rival, nothing even comes close.

Which Olodumare? The traditional Yoruba one or the Christian Yoruba one?

Amujale:

Meanwhile, you still havent answered my previous question, what is the French for Vavavoom?

What is Vavavoom? And what is its relevance here?

Mr. Homer already expressly accepted the possibility that all the references to a supreme being are references to the same entity.

Thus, he wastes time with any further argument.

thehomer:

Rest your case? What is the relevance of a conscience to this discussion?


It is in part.


No it isn't. If Olodumare has Orishas and the others do not what does that tell you?


I'm the first? Good. Does the context demonstrate that deities are not Gods?


Which Olodumare? The traditional Yoruba one or the Christian Yoruba one?


What is Vavavoom? And what is its relevance here?

One cannot hardly blame me if i am to suggest that it seems you're a little confused on what the thread reads, and i will reiterate for the sake of those that may have misread; Are Olodumare And "God/Allah" The Same Entity/concept/word?


If there is any other thing that is bugging you, ask it to the thread and if you are not satisfied with our answers you are free to post it as spanking new thread.

Deep Sight:

Mr. Homer already expressly accepted the possibility that all the references to a supreme being are references to the same entity.

Thus, he wastes time with any further argument.

Really? I wonder what he has to say for himself about this?.

Guys there's no bottom to the pit that you're entering. On so many levels its impossible to be specific as each of those particular words Olodumare, God and Allah are interpretations of various things using the constructs of language.

Perhaps they are the same. Perhaps they are simple aspects of the same being/entity/concept. Perhaps they are completely different.

what I do know is that christian missionaries typically looked and look for any god or entity that the locals and natives believe in that equate the most powerful one with the christian god.

the islamists just killed everyone who said otherwise.

Personally, I don't think they originally referred to the same entities/concepts. Now though, who can say. Language defines so much of your thoughts and thought patterns. eg a gay is a cigarette in england but not the same thing in most other places lol. the word refers to vastly different things depending on the context,location,people using it etc.

Perhaps Pastor AIO can elucidate on his previous words as they relate to this discussion.

Pastor AIO:


I believe that Jupiter is the same God as Zeus in the same way as Shango is the same God as Zeus and Thor is the same God as Zeus. I was just trying to make the point that the Romans wouldn't have called him Zeus.