₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
so many reasons , medical research (at least to understand human genetics better) economic purpose ( replace man power ) experimental uses ( use them to test the latest drug or any scienctifc discovery that human are directly required) war purposes ( replaced human solders and use them instead) Etc..

We human don't do this sort of stuff anymore, not even to rats and monkeys, so how the hell do you think we'd do it to our closer relatives? Or is it we humans that you propose to drag back to the dark ages?

LordReed:
That might not be immediately available to them going by where we were developmentally when they died out. They'll have a lot of catching up to do. May be in a lot fewer generations than we took but still they'll need so time, during which we'll have ensure they are not being taken advantage of like sentient idiot savants.

Not available to them how, or why? It's not as if we could also recreate the environment they existed in too.

I reckon if you put them in New York they'd get the subway like anyone else once shown how. It would be like taking a person from a primitive environment and placing them in a modern one. If you send them to Harvard they'd become professors just like anyone else. They were after all a product of their environment and would continue to be so.

LordReed:
What will be the point? A species you can put in a zoo and study? If a fully sapient Neanderthal is revived can you fathom the disadvantage such a species would have at this point in our evolutionary development? Your interest I think is not enough to necessitate their revival, not unless you will allow them not become as developed as you, rendering your interest in them devoid of those things that made you interested in the first place.

Actually, apart from physically, they probably would be no different to humans today. If you send them to school, they'd learn what you know, and if dressed in a suit they'd look like modern humans, so what exactly would be the point?

vaxx:
I have repeated it overtime that oni is not an historian or babalawo that will be versed in the knowledge of Ifa.

Oni ogunwusi is a leader and leaders are known for their use of sophistry to influence their subject.

Yes, I agree. Oni was not stating facts. He was saying what suited him at the time. He is afterall the Oni of all of Ife, including Muslims, Pagans, Christians and atheists, if any exist in Ife, so he has to thread a line of support for them all. When he makes things up though, he will be called out for it.

He's pretty much like you vaxx, making things up, except you do for other reasons I haven't worked out yet.

vaxx:
i
In shakespare, do we have fossils and scienctifc details of Romeo and Juliet? But there is a good historical and social record that the family existed and still continue till date. ., the Montagues & the Capulets family were real, & they did zealously fight on the streets of Verona

Ogbeni, stop making up lies. Show evidence that Romeo and Juliet were real!

Smh.

johnydon22:
I'm glad you think like this, hence the reason atheist are here is for to convert them to theism. Have thought about that?

They want to keep the Almighty God to themselves, the selfish gits! If they had the choice, some of them would clear us off the face of the earth!

I wonder if there's chapter and verse that teaches share. They really need to learn to!

Amitez:
Make me queue here first. In case they are ready to accept Oshogbo weed

We too de leave am inside sun to dry upon tree. In the meantime all di thc wey de make person high go drop for ground. By de time we harvest am, na soso twig and leave, common carbon with small high. Common weed we no sabi grow well or dis Canada for be we market!

I so de miss my farm!

bloodofthelamb:
So correcting a friend who seems to be heading a wrong path is now judging? Jesus gave us a pattern of how to pray. He did not say we must pray exactly the same way he showed us.

Shouldn't one check one's own path before concerning oneself about the path of another? Or are there not enough references in the God book for you to learn the errors of your own ways? Have you removed the twig in your own eye?

If Jesus did not say "pray exactly the same way he showed us", why do you assume to think how another prays is not pleasing enough?

Please stop with the "friend"!

bloodofthelamb:
We pray to God and not to any saint. We have only one mediator and intercessor in heaven, the man Jesus Christ who always live to intercede for us before the Father.

You assume to be sinless, yet you thank your Lord that you are not like that Catholic over there! You yourself mentioned how Jesus asked you to specifically "pray to your Father, who is unseen". Yet your prayer today was more than "Our Father".

Since you have judged, shall you too not be judged by the same measure?

bloodofthelamb:
This question is irrelevant. The question should be, what is the foundation of the prayer and to whom is it directed to?

That's the same question!

bloodofthelamb:
I pray different kind of prayer everyday directed to God my Father.

Why? Did Jesus teach you that?

bloodofthelamb:
And what is wrong with the prayer?

And what is wrong with Hail Mary?

jesais24:
Every atheist is a theist in the making.

If you believe this, you'd be glad we are here.

Now, go on, make us!

vaxx:
Now that we have established that ....

No vaxx!

"Now that you have singlehandedly determined that everyone must accept your opinion", is rather more accurate.

We, don't!

vaxx:
should I take this as an open conclusion that you can't comprehend those facts.

This is what you do vaxx. We tell you that what you are saying is complete illogical crap, but you cover your eyes and say we do not understand!

If you were honest with yourself, considering all the references you drag up, you'd see that you bastardise your own points repeatedly. You mention "Socratic method", but refuse to follow it to its logical conclusion! You claim "sufficient explanation", but you want to be the sole measure of sufficiency. You claim to be scientific by being pseudoscientific. You insist that a point is invalid, and use the same 'invalid point' to argue your position! You ask us to believe in something without evidence and accept the existence of that thing as a given. And if we don't, you claim we lack the ability to comprehend, when in fact what you are asking us to do is abandon mere common sense in favor of collective irrationality! We have all the same entertained the prospect hoping you have a point to make, but as is usual with you, you fail rather utterly to prove a single point, not to talk of address the question you yourself posed.

Take the question you say you wish to answer for instance. "Who created god?". If you understood atheism at all, you would realise that an atheist only poses it as a rhetorical question. And in order to adequately respond to it, you would have to show that that which you claim is 'created' exists in the first place, a point you have completely failed to address. This failure leaves your question in the same state as "what created the mountain vaxxhasnobrain", or "what created the hoard of elephants that exist on planet Nu". It makes me wonder how a person who knows of so much can avoid the implications of what he says to the point that I can't help ask if you really understand what you yourself are saying!

I know it's difficult for you to take anyone else's word for it, but I strongly advise that you read through this thread of your's and pay special attention to your own words if not anyone else's. Your errors in reasoning are so glaringly obvious that only by covering one's eyes could one not see them. I can assure you that most of those who read through will open their eyes and see how little sense you make even if you refuse to.

yarimo:
A potential KUJE prison inmate after his tenure as governor in 2018 is busy speaking trash. EFCC, ICPC and DSS please be at alert FAYOSE tenure ends next year

See? And you warned him o!

They never told us this though!

Obanikoro, Omisore recover passports from EFCC, ex-minister returns to US

vaxx:
The latter is the justification many rationalist philosophers used to justify the existence of God. The former is used to negate the latter, after all there is no real basis upon which to claim an original cause, to do so Is a logical leap. To negate the very concept of an infinite regression, well, you cannot because a person is in fact able to trace regressions almost infinitely. You could spend your entire life doing just that and you would still end up unfinished. Evolution is a perfect example.

You are simply pointing out the difficulty it poses. The fact some people want to insert a god into the gap in order to avoid an infinite regression does not mean it does not exist. Nor does the fact that one has limited time make it disappear. It simply means some wish to avoid it!

The presumptions in op's question alone should point this out. It is after all based on what you might probably refer to as the axiomatic "original cause", and, "all things are created", which are not valid axioms to begin with. But if one were to go along with that premise, then the universe was created, or caused, and what created or caused the universe was created or caused and so. And if you can't accept that regression, you could just have not stated that "all things are created or caused" to start with, since your uncreated or uncaused god itself falsifies that premise. Or you would have to move on to the conclusion from the premise which is an infinite regression of creators or causators and go wherever it leads to. The fact that a person wishes to cover one's eyes in order to avoid it does not in anyway make it disappear, even if some have managed to do so for their own biased reasons or the limitations of their knowledge, as the case was for most scientists pre-18th century or thereabouts. Only the intellectually dishonesty or ignorant would fly such kites in this modern age.

If, as you seem to be implying, evolution is an example of an infinite regression, that, provided you accept evolution is a valid idea, means infinite regressions do exist.

vaxx:
The op and evidence from contemporary philosophers disagree with that..

Rather they advocate for sufficient explanation.

I can't say I have come across any contemporary philosophers who say infinite regression is an impossibility! Some may decide to fill the gap and stop, but the search for knowledge cannot avoid someone coming up with one more regression.

DeSepiero:
Vaxx has a way of typing a lot and saying little. The question 'what created god' still hasn't been addressed. It's a poor attempt at perhaps dismissing the question as illogical.

Oh, I'm assuming we are doing the preliminary work and that he'd get to it eventually.

AgentOfAllah:
Although, secularism is widely seen as separation of religion and state. However, I'd like to broaden the definition for my purpose to include separation of state and ideology in general. By so doing, my advocacy for secularism makes sense to me. Since it would necessitate the adoption of governance by rational pragmatism. I use a redefined "secularism" because I don't know of any coinage that satisfactorily describes my meaning presently. Maybe I will make one up, in order to avoid confounding the widely accepted meaning of secularism with mine. So yes, given my definition, I do think it will ultimately promote religious tolerance provided it is not just promoted, but enforced.

By the way, education is achieving this in some countries. It seems the more people learn about people of other religions, the less intolerant of those who practise them they become. It can't be said that everyone learns though, so laws still have to be enforced. An example of such a law is UK's Equality Act 2010. Children also have to learn about religions in school.

vaxx:
None of my post suggest this. I only ascertain that infinite regression is a stopping block to hold on to the truth. And if we try to probe further, we will encounter the problem of induction.....these are my arguments.

The changes here is an example of that , since the basics of knowledge can itself change overtime . It is an evidence to prove no absolute truth exists ..snd likewise infinite regression itself will be impossible.

And likewise none of my writing indicate God is filling in the gap......

You do say "if we try to probe further, we will encounter the problem of induction".

Are you suggestion therefore that we shouldn't probe further to avoid the "problem of induction"?

Infinite regression is possible. The question is simply whether one wishes to entertain it or not!

Let me see if I understand you.

vaxx:
I think the problem is simple ....atheost simply lack the understanding of God is not an entity. a thing that can be measure or one old man with white bear sitting on the throne..

God is not an entity that can be measured, right? Nor is it an old man with a beard sitting on a throne?

vaxx:
To me ....God trannceds that. I prefer to say he is A process that birth everything....everything has its elements

Yet "he" is a process? Okay, I'm willing to let the "he" slip, though it implies a male entity. I shall assume you mean "it".

Like the process of evolution, perhaps? (Though it has nothing to do with birth per se)

vaxx:
I think this position is illogical, If you can't probe the flow of matter to its origin, then you shouldn't pin the universe to any truths.

Does that include not pinning anything to gods too?

vaxx:
Suffice to say, all things begins with a starting point.

Really? "Suffice to say", according to whom?

Does the universe have a starting point apart from the starting point of its current state? What about any previous states, do they also have beginnings? And do gods also have starting points and beginnings?

vaxx:
To be accurate in thesis, it requires a thorough understanding of process, and its origins as its indicative of how things come to be, without the holistic understanding of all these put together, whatever ideologies put forward would be like an young baby leaning on how to walk. just like how Albert Einstein put it.. ......

"Thorough understanding"! "Holistic understanding"! About the probable infinite universe from our armchairs with our puny brains and minds?

Human we are, with our narrow views, "young babies", as you say, "learning how to walk". So, how, or why, does anyone assert ideologies and "pin the universe to any truths about gods", I ask?

P.s. I know you say you are "not arguing for the proof of God in this thread" but since the title of your thread is "What created God" , and is in response to "atheists", who's concern is God, I'm afraid I can't see how you can possibly not expect God to be mentioned in response. I am willing to assume you are not arguing, yet, though, which is rather uncharacteristic of you, and hence, commendable.

Now, my questions above please.

LordReed:
Anytime a person attempts to incite doubt as to how we arrive at truth then they inadvertently demolish their own foundations for truth claims, even when they think they only undermine the other party or seek to make all truth claims equal.

The odd thing is that they only incite that doubt where another person's truth is concerned, but never to their own truth, which they tend to assert with absolute certitude.

vaxx:
According to five agrippa troops

Numbers 3 of the troops answer your question too., (Relation) – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.

So, you admit that we should look at things anew and from different perspectives, (and the fear of induction and infinite regressions should not bar one from doing so?)

If that is the case, why plug the gaps with gods?

vaxx:
might need to know? Remember we are dealing with the possibility why sufficient explanation must be enough unless we want to enter into problem of induction.

"Enough"? Newton was "enough". That didn't stop us searching however, and see how far we've come.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't bother, because we should fear induction?

vaxx:
Five troops of Agrippa that validate the sufficient explanation . It is way of telling questionier how it is impossible to propel some certain knowledge.

The five troops are as follows.


1 Disecent. The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.

2 Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity.

3 Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.

3. Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.

4 Circularity – The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.

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

Read further from there...

LordReed , budaatum ...I think this strengthen my response better ....


To be continue

Since you admit that

vaxx:
Even when I said it can become a problem if the theologians choose to elevate this belief above observational evidence..... common

I must admit I don't quite get your point in relation to the topic of the thread since what you posted Agrippa said can also be invoked in an argument against gods.

An understanding of gods is however sufficient to make it possible to propel certain knowledge about gods, except by a tortoise who refuses to perform modus ponens of course, which it is permitted to do where conventionalism and the such like is concerned but not when considering what is observed i.e. simply determining when to cross a busy road. Though, I do recall you equivocating when defining a table.

vaxx:
Atheist therefore needs to be truthful to themselves that the theologian idea of God is sufficient until it violate observational truths. Which it has not done since time memorial.

"God knowledge" may be "sufficient for the theologians" but we are not all theologians in need of filling gaps to erase infinite regressions away.

Occam would say "plurality should not be posited without necessity". So why fill gaps in knowledge with a god when, a simple " I don't know" would be a more accurate response?

He typically forgets the problem of induction that he himself raises and then attempts to use the same induction to prove the existence of gods! I shake my head.

truthfulparrot:
I did not say they should arrest him but they can commence investigation as they did with Fayose while he was still a governor.

They did not start Fayose investigation tomorrow. I'm certain they started Kano governor's yesterday!

delerx:
How is it ur money? U dey pay tax.

So whose money is it if not you, Nigeria's money?

Felixv:
My fear is the quality of their investigators and their lawyers - the rich (corrupt), would always have better lawyers - money talks.

I won’t be surprised if Fayose parades a multitude of SANs, how many can EFCC pay for.

That is the more reason Buhari’s EO is extremely important, this is to cripple those who have corruption cases - decimate then financially by seizing their assets.

See brain person!

Fools, learn please!