₦airaland Forum

Butterflyleo:
You and budaatum are speaking about an abstract known in mathematics. My OP is not dealing with abstracts but reality of the universe. Or is the universe you know abstract?

I am not going to define God to you. My OP is not about Yahweh or Allah but about GOD.

You are speaking about an abstract known in religion that is called god!

superhumanist:
Then, I too can claim that the celestial teapot is another uncaused cause without any evidence.

Thank you. Now butter, refute that and I might seriously entertain your op.

Butterflyleo:
My statement is correct because I have eliminated God from what the statement covers when I said God is the uncaused cause and the immutable mover. Its simple english

So, every effect has a cause except your god, right?

Butterflyleo:
Why are you always a blockhead. Read my OP again. I am sure if you or budaatum had read my OP you would have seen me describe God as an UNCAUSED CAUSE and IMMUTABLE MOVER.

Which renders your infinite regression talk as nonsensical.

So, every effect does not have a cause then, as opposed to what you said in you op?

Butterflyleo:
There is no such thing as an infinite regression because there are no infinite gods as it were and we all know that not all gods lay claim to creation. So where does infinite regression come into play?

It comes from the following

Butterflyleo:
Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect

If the statement above is true, then so far as there is an effect, there is a god that caused it!

vaxx:
Mathematics is not a tangible thing, but actually an abstract concept and abstraction are always problematic. infinity mathematically is indeed a flawed concept that leaves paradoxical gaps, or holes in the number line, both in the middle, where zero is not allowed to have a reciprocal, and at the two ends where “infinity” is not a valid number''. likewise.Mathematics itself is built on the foundations of axioms implemented a long time ago.( we deal with this phenomenon before) Those axioms were made from humans and the concept of infinity can be played around with by human even if it is true or false.The question i throw up is a tangible one and i will like you to treat it as such. i currently have this book on my table, i will recommend it to you too.‘Infinitesimals: ''The History of a Dangerous Idea’' by Amir Alexander. it elucidate more on the concept of infinity in mathematics. but before then can you go ahead and settle my tangible question?

Your question was rather meaningless since no one has decided a I needs the permission of another driver to drive a car. In fact, all one needs is a car key, and the know how, provided the car is legally ones.

The uncaused causer is not an axiom. It is an hypothesis at best and has not been proven to be true or valid in anyway whatsoever!

And please, the topic being discussed is difficult in its own right. Don't further complicate things by not being clear in your writing or you will open yourself to be misunderstood.

trapQ:
So by your first sentence, are you purporting that atheists generally are jerks who derive pleasure in bashing religion and it's adherents?

Did you just rain insults on me and call me jerk?
You must be an atheist!

vaxx:
i think we already settle this matter, infinite regression is philosophically and scientifically impossible. for example, imagine yourself to be a car driver ready to start a car, but before you start you have to ask permission from another driver behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever drive? If you do drive please explain how?

An infinite regression is most certainly possible regardless of whether one eventually drives or not! Mathematically, think of a number and subtract one from it, then subtract one from your answer and keep going. Do tell me when you can go back no further!

Are you just failing to recognise rules set by you? In either scenario, if permission is required, driver or soldier has no choice but to seek it. And if it means no shooting or driving is done, so be it. The stupidity of such as system where permission is sought ad infinitum is the sole reason we don't set things up that way and set a limit on how many permissions would be required.

However, op has set up such a system with his statement
"Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect", but which he wants to get out of by claiming, "except god". And the only evidence he has for such a claim is his say so! And this he calls scientific! Does he not understand that therefore means
some, and not the every that he claims? Oh, I guess his argument falls apart if he admits that!

Seriously, on that basis, I wonder why one should bother claiming god done it. He might as well claim he is the first permission, except we'd probably all say he's mad, has a demon in him, and crucify his black ass!

vaxx:
Saying it does not make sense is a position of subjectivity which i agree, i my self found the analogy matured and logical. supposing we change the character of a car driver in that scenario to a solder in the military who depends on another commandant to fire or shoot, and this commandant also depend on another commandant till it goes to infinity, when we the solder shoot? in a hierarchical format, you cannot take decision on your own. you depend on another authority to give you a go ahead. but it will get to a stage where the authority in that position do not depend on any command, but assuming it is loose. how will that be possible?

in an organised settings, for example a bus terminal, the bus coach has an instruction to follow, the time she must live and when she must arrive, the speed at which she can move, the numbers of time she must stop on the way, the places she must stop for rest before reaching the main destination and likewise the weight of the overall luggage she must carry. etc. so she is under rules and instruction. so no coach can just jump into the bus and move when instructions is yet to be given.


ok i hope this one is clear enough, but if not, please let me know .

PastorAIO:
Actually, I am surprised that NatGeo ended the video right there where the guy says it's only mitochondrial dna and doesn't go on to explain it. NatGeo is obviously just trying to be Sensational. This is quite sad. I know they've been struggling to make money and had to be bought by Rupert Murdoch but this kind of misleading sensationalism is just beneath them. Murdoch might be influencing them with his style of journalism, the Clickbait technique.
You know, when you read the headlines of an article and it is so sensational you buy the paper only to read the full article and realize that it is not saying what the headline is suggesting.

I have known NatGeo to be clickbait for quite a while now and Murdoch's ownership has simply dragged it further into the gutter. I just did not want to include that in my argument against since I hadn't actually watched the video. It is a pity as it used to have an amazing reputation for credibility.

Please comment on how the dna tested was found to be that of Jesus, in the first place, and how they avoided contamination.

DeLioncourt:
How does your Ferrari analogy put the onus on the Ferrari seller?
Your imaginary money is not his headache in the least bit. All he wants is to get that credit alert before releasing the vehicle. The burden is therefore on you to provide the evidence that you do indeed have the money for it.

Take a more reasonable analogy.
Tax authorities come to your business to collect tax. You claim you made no profit so there is no tax to collect.
The burden lies with you to prove adequately that you didn't make any profit. If you can't prove this, you will be taxed on best of judgement basis.
I hope this clears things up.

Oh, my analogy puts no onus on the Ferrari salesman even though I would love the onus to be on him that I have a million pounds. And I agree that it is like asking the tax man to prove that I made no profit. I just wish I could say things like my lack of profit or ownership of a million pounds is divine, and that the evidence for both claims is spiritual and can only be observed in dreams. But I am beginning to conclude that tax and sales people are bloody atheist since their approach is "Show me the money"! Someone should go preach god to them so they don't end up in hell!

DeLioncourt:
Exposing a child to possibilities cannot be indoctrination.
It's like putting different kinds or food before a person and letting him pick the one that best suits him. You aren't forcing him ..you're allowing him make a personal choice. But when you put a plate of rice in front of that person because you prefer to cook and eat rice, then you're forcing that person to make that choice without him knowing he has other options.

Thank you. Seems you are suggesting I might be objective. But I am the parent, creating my child into an image of me! Are you sure we should trust me?

Say I put the rice on a beautiful plate, add tasty stew and meat with dodo, but just dump the alternatives in a bowl. Might I not have deliberately skewed choice towards one rather that the other? I gave choice, didn't I?

DeLioncourt:
Lol. Fair point..now I say the flying spaghetti monster is divine and can therefore bend things to his will. He has willed these ingredients that make up his noodly form to fly and thus, he can fly.
He can't be seen however by believers or unbelievers...but it is said that he can appear in dreams of a special few to whom he gives his gospel.

Disprove that.

The atheists will say the onus is on the believer, and not on them to prove the impossible. I too think they talk rubbish!

I wonder if you've heard about the million pounds in my bank account. I've had it a few months now, and plan to go to the Ferrari shop and buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari with it. Problem is that the Ferrari salesman will not take my word for it. So I'm thinking of telling him the million pounds is divine and cannot be seen, but he will receive it in his dreams. Yep, that might work. Except last night in my sleep I ate a meal of pounded yam and egusi soup with panla, bokoto, abodi and the most succulent ogunfe meat and washed the whole lot down with one big odeku beer. It was served by 6 of the most beautiful naked women you could ever imagine who rubbed my belly and kissed my lips as I ate. I was so full I could burst! Funny though, I woke up starving and had to eat two eggs on toast to alleviate my hunger!

I just hope the Ferrari salesman does not say, "that's okay, we'll deliver the Ferrari, in your dreams!

DeLioncourt:
No one is asking you to sit a child down and say "there is no god." That is indeed indoctrination.
However, exposing the child to all the possibilities and allowing him make an informed decision isn't.
A large majority of "believers" were taken to churches and mosques before they could even form words.

I pedantically wanted the distinction made. Thank you.

I do however wonder, in light of discussions heretofore had, whether it would be absurd for someone to claim that "exposing the child to all the possibilities", is not also indoctrination. The claim has after all been made repeatedly by some on here.[size=8pt][/size]

Sorry, but your analysis is incorrect. We are Nigerians. We have only evolved to a particular point, and at the moment, this is just where we are on the evolution of knowledge scale I am afraid, arguing if gods make one good or whether one chooses not to do evil by ones own might.

When we evolve further, forums like this will have a Philosophy section, and Nigerians will remove the gods from consideration and discuss most things discussed under religion there.

winner01:
Atheism is simply impracticable. Either you steal morality from God, or talk constantly about God, or live life as if there is a purpose, or attach meaning to life..atheism remains impracticable.
You see what I bolded in your quote? You can't disregard something and go ahead to write an epistle on it.

Regard means "attention" or "concern" for something. You claim a complete disregard for God and god notions , yet you go ahead to write the epistle below.Impracticable Impracticable

Being on a religion section is enough proof, the need to evangelize and persuade people to be on your side of "truth" is enough proof. This is not "lack of regard" or "lack of belief".

Practice atheism.

DeLioncourt:
Encouraging people to consult reason before making decisions is not indoctrination. Taking a child to church and bible study classes is indoctrination.

Incidentally, the Believer "consults reason" too before making decisions. And sitting my child down and drumming "there is no god" into it is indoctrination too.

DeLioncourt:
The fact is that, the existence of god cannot be disproved...just as the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and his noodly appendages cannot be disproved. However, their existence cannot be proven either.

I disagree! With profound apologies to the FSM worshippers.

Spaghetti is made with flour, eggs and salt, unless one means spaghetti bolognese, in which case a sauce is made of onions, olive oil, garlic cloves, minced beef, mushrooms, dried oregano or mixed herbs, can or chopped tomatoes, beef stock, tomato purée, Worcestershire sauce, salt and ground black pepper and is added to the cooked spaghetti. It must be noted that none of these ingredients is known to fly, either by itself or in any combination whatsoever unless someone picks it up and flings it into the sky, and even then, it is not flying but would be said to have been flung.

As to monsters in their own specific right, while it is possible to create, with the ingredients listed above, a thing that can be called a monster, it would not be a living thing as the mere act of cooking, and with the non-living ingredients above listed, will ensure a dead plate of inanimate spaghetti, which cooking will only further kill.

But aside from that, if anyone were to assert that "over there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster", one is bound to ask, “Where?" To wit further evidence would be required to ascertain that there, truly, is a flying, spaghetti, monster, and the non-provision of any credible evidence of a sighting of anything that can be called a Flying Spaghetti Monster in itself, would be proof that nothing of the sort exists, at least not in the location it is claimed to exist.

Do note that the converse, "look, there goes the Flying Spaghetti Monster", and the sighting of one actually flying, would be evidence that one does actually exist, mind.

Now, if you were to claim it is a spirit and only the spiritual can see it, or that one is not able to perceive it perhaps because one is not reborn or because one has not been bathed in the right water by the appropriate establishments as some claim with regards to other similar non-extant things, then rationally minded people of the scientific bent, which seems to be that of atheists by part, would claim your evidence is invalid as it is not repeatable but observer dependent.

So, again, I disagree, with apologies to those who's spaghetti is a monster that flies, and rather strongly assert that "the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and his noodly appendages can be proven, or disproved".

I've met many atheists, in Nigeria and elsewhere. I once met an Israeli atheist who could not believe a black person like me could be one too as he'd never met one.

I have a friend who has never been out of Nigeria who is an atheist. He works in a bank and refuses to join in with morning prayer with his colleagues at work. He says it was tough when he started there some 15 years ago but not an issue now, and since he's now a boss, "they wouldn't dare", he informs me.

I also have an elderly friend, married to a Church of England vicar, who is an atheist, but supports his wife by driving her to work on Sundays and other days. He keeps his opinions about gods away from his wife, but she knows he is an atheist, as is one of their 2 sons.

How many times do you want me to answer the same question? No, I have not watched the documentary. I actually tried, on consideration , but it won't play for me it seems. But that's besides the point. I've posted my arguments against it all the same and for want of listing them again - non-preservation of sample and thereby degradation, possible contamination, no Jesus dna to actually compare it to, no corroborating scientific peer reviews etc.

All that is not to claim I have proved it wrong, which I cannot do unless I have the skills to test dna myself and have access to the sample. What you are however asking me to do is believe it, and again, I say no can do, considering the weight of evidence against it likely being true.

Has anyone else watched the video please?

OkCornel:
Have you watched the documentary? Yes or No...


If you haven't...then you would have a tough time proving the geneticist wrong.

What makes you think what you are posting here was not considered before that conclusion was arrived at?

OkCornel:
Interesting...so you know genetics better than the experts in that field!

Very interesting...

So how are you certain these geneticists never considered these limitations?

Thought you guessed "we have nothing to discuss"?

It's not about who knows more. If there were dna available for Jesus to compare it with, can you imagine how explosive that news alone would be? I propose big enough for it to be claimed "He's alive, amen!" Then you are asking me to consider that dna found on a cloth can be, first, determined to be that of Christ after all the time and grubby hands that must have touched and deposited dna on said cloth, and second, that the cloth even had anything to do with Christ in the first place!

You are asking me to believe way too much I'm afraid.

OkCornel:
I am still asking you if you think the geneticists didn't consider all these limitations you are posting here before arriving at their conclusion...

Yes, I am claiming the geneticists didn't consider all these limitations before arriving at their conclusion!

Aaron Kosminski

Can we ever find Jesus's DNA? I met the scientists who are trying to find out

TOSIN116:
i talking about changing form like growing bigger head, sharper teeths and perhaps some wings to fly
and why didn't any more monkey change to man?
and snakes grow legs
and they are just the same as they were in the bible times

Talk about whatever you want. But I do advise you read up on evolution so you can at least talk about it intelligently. You might find that those changes you seek are happening around you.

TOSIN116:
hmm...
why should modern men believe charles darwin and why hasn't man evolve to another creature? :>

Oh, humans have evolved immensely, both physically, and moreso, mentally and they continue to. One just need see how people thought just 50 years ago to know that.

deedy111:
You quote me wrong sir, didn't say I carry anything around with me, just here to get views on ' if spiritism contributes mostly to peoples success'

What does 'spiritism' mean exactly.

partnerbiz4:
No one tells what they actually did to make it.
f
Forget all the rubbish in biographies.

Will Adenuga tell you that he donated hundreds of millions to Obasanjo in the wake of Obasanjos library so as to get licence for glo?


Will Ricky Tarfa include how he bribed a judge in his autobiography?


Leave matter abeg.


Life is uncertain and risky too.

People talk about doubling hustle and I laugh. It's not just about "overwork"

One makes it more when one has cumulative advantage.

Go and read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

Are those the only autobiographies you know? How about mum and dad? Or have you not seen how they got through life? Brothers, sisters, uncles, aunties, friends, colleagues, you never seen any of them make it? Hang around a bit longer and you will.

And no, its not about overwork. Op has gotten some good jobs, but there's obviously something he carries around with him that don't quite jell at the office, so I advise he take a really good honest look at himself.

deedy111:
Thanks bro for the advice, meanwhile I know am not lazy, most days I commend myself for my effort but all these not yielding.
I might be wrong but I got this confidence that there's more to successful people that there prefer keeping to themselves.
I heard someone say some people can diabolically grow from others hardwork unless you protect yourself, could that be reason some don't loose/fall in business while others do?

You could be working hard the wrong way. There is a reason you new job let you go after a month. I've met people with the wrong attitudes who think their ways are right even though all the evidence suggests otherwise. Read about successful people. Also look into the writings of Daniel Goleman. A lot of people have found him helpful.

deedy111:
i sit down so many days to think and weep over my life, and each time this phrase/question keeps ringing in my head 'COULD THERE SOMETHING AM YET TO KNOW?'

Most successful people I have come across and read on are in one way or the other into some sort of spiritual awareness like charms, occult, very few Christians(disguised), etc

There is quite a lot you don't know, it seems, and what you do know sounds warped to me.

Do you really think all the successful people are "into some sort of spiritual awareness like charms, occult" etc? Is it not more true that a common thing that ties them together is hard work?

I advice that you stop seeking for pie in the sky, and get off your lazy ass and work instead of thinking as you currently do. Try reading autobiographies of some successful people too. You'll find out how they did it.

OkCornel:
One question...

Have you watched the step by step analysis on the piece of clothing in the documentary before concluding its a hearsay?

I just want to confirm if you have watched the video...before debunking the analysis of these experts...

No I haven't. Told you I wouldn't. 45 minutes is precious to me to waste.

Have you researched dna on ancient relics, or human tissue? Below is a guideline for samples collected and preserved with intent to analyse the dna.

For how long can DNA forensic evidence be kept?
DNA is relatively stable. It is most likely that forensic samples collected from a rape victim will yield results: however, time factors, chemical factors (such as washing using soaps and detergents), external factors (such as temperature and humidity) and internal factors (other bodily fluids) may affect the validity of a sample. The earlier samples are collected and tested the higher the chances of yielding solid, reliable results. The following are just some guidelines as to how long different DNA samples may remain viable:

DNA from fingers in vagina — up to 12 hours.
DNA from a penis — most likely to obtain a profile from the victim within the first 12 hours.
DNA from skin to skin contact (e.g., on bruises, or from kissing) can be detected up to two days. This includes detection of body fluids, cellular material and lubricant. If by chance, the person has not bathed or showered then the Forensic Science service says that the relevant area can be swabbed up to 7 days after the incident.
Fingernail scrapings — two days.
Oral (saliva and mouth swabs) — two days.
Lubricant from a condom — up to 30 hours.
Anal — up to three days.
Vaginal — up to seven days.
Fibers of anything put on the head can last up to seven days.
Semen can be detected on clothing despite washing.

How long does DNA last from when the samples were taken?
The DNA should last up to 3 months from the time you took the samples, provided you followed our instructions and they are kept dry and at room temperature. For humid climates, the swabs should be returned immediately.

And if you got the money and the time, Exploring the limits for the survival of DNA in blood stains

Its really got nothing to do with science really, since there is nothing but hearsay to tie the clothe to Christ in the first place. Then consider all the other hands that touched this cloth, and the fact that it wasn't from the start preserved so dna on it can be tested. Then look at the history of Jesus' relics themselves! Here is one about the Holy Prepuce. I am certain there would be a video about it somewhere.

OkCornel:
Since you're certain it's all 3...and you're more knowledgeable than the scientists in that documentary...what makes you think that the scientists and the interviewers did not consider your point of view before arriving at their conclusions?

OR do you think forensic science and archaeo-genetics has not improved and evolved to surpass that challenge?

Emmanystone:
No, you don't make sense even to yourself.

In your omniknowitall opinion, I suppose.

Emmanystone:
You are not making any sense.

As in, "there is a twig in buda's eye", right!?

No, Emmanystone, I do not make sense, to you. I understand.

On reflection, religion itself, is a process of educating. If a person adopts a religion, they will go through a process of being taught and self learning. This is why Christianity and Islam for instance, provide libraries of books to self learn from, and insists one goes to 'school' every Friday or Sunday to learn how to. It was how one kept the Sabbath Holy in Judaism and Christianity.

Religion can also only be by "indoctrination" if it is the type that tells one to "believe", while disallowing questioning, skepticism or doubt of what one has learnt.

An example of indoctrinators would be those who cling to the letter but ignore the spirit, while a teacher will send the Holy Spirit to further minister to one.