₦airaland Forum

ValentineMary:
We originated moral laws and civil laws by our communal relationship which was inevitable as man began to grow in population and the need for community across. The civil laws were ment to keep us in check.
They would not be useless as they ensure the continuous growth of our species.

felixomor:
All these things you are saying "civil law", "moral construct" etc
Already defeats your argument that life has no meaning or purpose

The 2 reasons are
1. You cant categorically tell us the origins of moral construct and civil laws without a primordial superior moral constructor

2. They will be useless if life had no real meaning or purpose.

felixomor:
^^^^^
||||||||

The delusional people all above me though......
Its obvious 4everGod really dealt with you people.

Chai
By the way, nice write-up Op.

jonbellion:
and how is the creator the christian God
Una matter don tire me

At the end of the day, he takes a smart escape route from the whole arguments after he has escaped all questions. This is the funniest debate I have ever had!

hopefulLandlord:
I still need to point out something here again for the benefit of the readers even though I've already said it before

I'm not against the existence of first cause/unmoved mover but rather more of an agnostic to those kind of "arguments", there still remain mysteries and as long as there are still things beyond our explanations (at least for now) its would be stupid to rule such out indefinitely, consequently, I'm not against what I call "generic god", I'm always open to its existence and to be blunt

There seems to be a conflation of Deism and Theism here. One can be entirely open to the possibility of a Higher Form of intelligent life in/outside the universe. After all, the universe alone is VAST.

I don't want the readers to get the wrong information by thinking this post means I'm inconsistent which is why I'll post a quote of mine not long ago

what I argue against mostly are the claims attached to this said "transcendent" entity

this is one of the reasons I'm not the type that goes around arguing against deists/pantheists etc

even Sean Carroll in his debate with WLC made it clear that whatever he says there "shouldn't be interpreted as him ruling out the existence of any higher power or creator or mover"

Rich Dawkins himself says he's 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale
for those not familiar with then Dawkins scale, below is the pic

https://jacmus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/The-Dawkinss-Scale-436x372.jpg

it means that even he is not saying there's no god/not, I don't know many atheists that are making the philosophically absolute claim 'no god exists.' Most of the time, atheist assertions are more along the lines of 'there is no evidence for your conception of God existing.' so I argue more against the religious conception of god(s)

OtemAtum:
Ashamed of what if I may ask? Seems u hate my personality and why is that?

Ever8054:
..that ones sees nothing in a bowl and another letter sees whatever in it do not give "NOTHING" a different definition....here is the balance...
..(A)>sees "nothing "=common definition of nothing.
..(B)>sees "something"=common definition of something..
Note÷.eventuality,does not change meaning of word but can only change the word with a meaning that best describe the new event. so if Lawrence says" Nothing " to his audience the meaning of the word is established.
..in a case,he actually means "SOMETHING else"
he will definitely not use the already established word"NOTHING " in its original meaning to negotiate the "THING" on his mind.
.that is where the event changes and requires a new word with a meaning suitable to the change.

Lawrence,. says "NOTHING" but means something else=confusion in its original meaning nothing else..

OtemAtum:
The 'nothing' of today becomes 'something' in the future or by the use of microscope. For example, you may say thereis nothing in a bowl, but another person may say there are actually something. There are bacteria, viruses, etc.

So I understand what hopefullandlord is saying that there could be different definition of 'nothing'. Every 'nothing' can become something as soon as they are discovered to be something. But it doesn't make those who initially thought of them as nothing liars. That's why science give space for modification.

I'm observing.

hopefulLandlord:
been very busy today, so my reply may not be coming as fast as yesterday's

hopefulLandlord:
there's time everywhere there's space, Minkowski spacetime shows this

like I said, that something can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

you're defining a watered down version of time and asserting it,

Science says Time began with the Big Bang

and didn't exist before then and let me point out the solar system didn't start with the big bang

what time science is referring to is totally different from the one you're implying here

Time certainly exist in a "vacuum",

although the human forms of measuring it may quickly become meaningless as you look past our solar system.

The movement of a galaxy that spins once every 220+ milion years is not easily explained or talked about in terms of seconds.

The collapse initiating a supernova may only take (man) seconds to occur, but it could just as easily be measured in units of time called "blazos" that are each 2.345 seconds in duration.
The man time scales are "arbitrarily" defined using our own familiar surroundings. Time itself will proceed with or without their benefit.

so yes, time exists everywhere in the universe

independent of any system,

except you want to bring black holes into the discussion

actually you're the one that gave the first cause eternal property, so do define comprehensively what you mean by "eternal"

Ever8054:
he asked you a simple question "since Lawrence did not mean " nothing " in its literal sense, them what did he mean? and where did he get his own definition of "Nothing" from! and why if not to make a pointless point...
the guy is really dragging your bowls around in a very calm and logical manner,..lol...sorry for interference ambassagod...

Challspace:
ambassagod

You seem to have a lot of time in your hands, so I have a proposal. I didn't bother reading through the whole thread but what I can say is that hopefulLandlord isn't doing a good job debating you on this - no offence. So whenever you're free or you feel like it, I'd love to take up the challenge of disproving the existence of God, not that it matters anyway - seeing as scores of other sympathizers on Nairaland have been putting up irrefutable arguments almost on a daily basis.

My quest is personal as I have noted through reading your posts that you're just a coward feeding off on triumph over intellectually weak minds. Besides its been a slow week at the office and what better way to pass time than to engage in a little God debate.

I look forward to your reply.

Ever8054:
thank you..hope you are trough!!?...

CatfishBilly:
There are 1001 threads here by atheists, describing their "epiphany", if she really wants to, she can read them and get to know.

ambassagod:
Time, is a system that MUST be measurable! Otherwise, it is not time.

rejosom:
My head de explode!!!

What is this?

A debate?

Nawa oooo.

hopefulLandlord:
pretty please, all those without saying anything

If Vacuum has Gases, then its subject to time,

you might call it an illusion but its no more of an illusion than that of time we have on earth,

that we are measuring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist anywhere we can't!, you're making a categorical error here

everything WITHIN our universe is subject to time but you apparently seem to disagree

BTW, let me get you straight, when you say this uncaused cause is eternal and you agree there are particles that exist without a solar system, does this mean these "particles" are Eternal? chose your reply wisely

NairalandSARS:
Hahahahaha. Choi! People dey o.
Kingebukasblog, abeg come your brother.

NairalandSARS:
HAHAHAHA@bolded. What do you nutjobs mean by BEFORE TIME or OUTSIDE OF SPACE, cos I hear these shi.t a lot.

Robynwelo1:
God really can't do much it seems. The bible says He is the creator of good and evil. He knows ALL things and can do ALL things. If he decides to not do anything about nothing then he CAUSED it. Simple!

Also, there is nothing free about freewill when he laid down ridiculous rules for us to follow or be condemned.

Robynwelo1:
That did not make much sense since the FRSC did not build your car. Here is a better example, A parent stocked a child's room with sweets, books, pornography and guns, and then asks the child to pick only the sweets and books or face severe punishment. Now that's more like it. Freewill indeed!

branhampaul:
since you are mounted on bringing out faults and not realising mistakes of the imperfect human your stupid God created, I desert you to die in your stupidity..

Goshen360:
Many Christians still wanna argue the truth of the new covenant. To such, we say, Christ died in vain and we pray their eyes be opened to the finished works of Christ. Its too much to argue and trying to convince those who their mind already made up.

Until Christ be formed in you and you see Christ in the old covenant as types and shadows of better things to come, one will continue to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

Thank you, OP and may the Lord help His Church!