₦airaland Forum

j1mmy:
Belief in god without research and evidence + religions = the biggest hindrance to progress and human development among Africans!

Africans are rated the most stupid and backward people on earth thanks to illiterate beliefs!

But that's your fault. Though, not anymore, thank god.

With the arrival of questioning people like you constantly questioning beliefs on an open forum you provoke others to do the same! So don't you ever stop questioning please.

Soon, with the help of your likes, we will become the frontrunners!

vaxx:
NO scientist prove or disprove axioms, it is only you budaa...

And do not ever forget that axiom please, that buda proves her axioms!

I have no choice. Or you will argue about my axioms, which are self evident, but which you force me to prove because they do not appear to be evident to yourself.

John 3
‎
The Kingdom of God?‎
‎
There is much more to this chapter than I will touch on in this post. I will begin with ‎verse 4, knowing I do a disservice to even that verse.
‎
‎4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”‎

Nicodemus here asks a question you would hear many of us atheists ask when we attempt to ridicule religious belief. Our failing, (on both sides, I would claim), is a misunderstanding of what may have been meant‎.

To be born, is to become as a baby, completely devoid of ideas, like an empty vessel waiting to be filled up, which unfortunately, we just are not. We hold on to preconceived ideas that act like sunglasses distorting reality. It is like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, we all see things from our own subjective viewpoint and lack objectivity. We are people in the darkness grabbing on to bits of an elephant and defining what the entirety is from the little we know. Any filling of the vessels we are would involve emptying its current content and refiling us with new stuff. 

The Kingdom of God cannot be comprehended within the limits of the ideas that we have especially if we are opposed to it, or comprehendeth it not. It will sound as ridiculous as describing an elephant by knowing only its trunk, or as being born again sounds to Nicodemus.‎ Perhaps what we need do is be willing to suspend our beliefs, and not assume we already know it all. "How can this be?" Indeed, this is going to prove as difficult as reentering ones mother's womb! It is not impossible though, if not taken literally, and if you were to try to consider.

Anything said on the entire chapter would be ignoring the elephant in the room if I do not mention verse 16.‎

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ‎

I personally have issues with the word "believe" in that verse. My preconceptions get in the way, so to speak, as while I believe some things - I believe I will wake up tomorrow‎, for instance - I require evidence for the things I believe. ‎I have woken up everyday so far is evidence that I will likely wake up tomorrow. 

I have always claimed that I cannot 'believe' in the existence of a God, or gods. ‎If I were a Christian, I would know there is a God and would have to arrogantly state, "I know there is a God", and my Bible will read as follows:

‎‎For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever knows‎ him shall not perish but have eternal life. ‎
‎‎
There is a difference, in my opinion.‎‎

I am hoping more flesh would dress the idea of "The Kingdom of God" as we step forward.‎
‎

vaxx:
This is the reason elon musk is scared of ALS.....they will soon replace human capital which will in turn increase unemployment. this made me ask a particular question, are we indeed progressing? she was granted citizenship of Saudi Arabia last year

Yet, let us not plug Sophia into an electric charge and see how much human like things she does then!

As to replacing you, might be a good idea.

superhumanist:
Budaatum, look!

Look at another purposefully silly person who likes to argue against obvious facts.

He believes a robot built Nairaland and the Seun Osewa that spoke at interviews is robot. Lol.

They want to hold a ridiculously untenable position by beffudling the evidence to suit their position. They all know whether he exists or not and even discussing with them on that level is insulting to my intelligence.

If they think as they have reasoned that he does not exist, perhaps they don't exist. And all they seem to write here comes from a bot that they think is them.

vaxx:
you should know this guy is playing a mental gymnastic with you, ....

So are you. Rather dishonestly!

vaxx:
good point , you will actually answer this question yourself, you both know vaxx on what factor at least for two able mind to say we both agree on this we should factor some common agreement and not just base on beer parlor settlement. is it because of vaxx look or his writing style? or what?

Precisely! We would have to agree on our axioms! The assumed axioms in the analogy is that he knows vaxx and understands the meaning of "is" and "coming"! Basically, for the sake of the analogy, I have faith (considerable trust), that sc knows the axioms that define vaxx, and the meaning of "is" and "coming". Such that if I say "sc, look at vaxx coming", we agree that it is indeed vaxx who is coming based on the agreed axioms (whatever they may be) that constitute who vaxx is, and those that constitute "is", and those that constitute "coming".

If I can't have faith (considerable trust), that sc knows vaxx, or understands the definition of "is" and "coming", and that he is an honest individual (he isn't, but for the sake of the analogy, lets assume he is), I would have to start off by making sure sc has eyes and that he knows how to use them, and then telling sc who vaxx is, then defining "is" and "coming", and ascertaining that we are in agreement. That would be me defining my axioms, by making them evident to sc. Basically, I will have to prove the validity of my axioms to sc!

It is those axioms you are here quibbling about. And it is your quibbling that creates a need for me to have to define (or prove) them!

vaxx:
good . you both assume whom vaxx is base on what constraint?sometimes i do not know why you people do not see your flaws until someone point it out. what make you both assume? on what precept do you both assume on?

My analogy is not assuming two drunk people! Come on, work within the parameters of my axiom!

We both know vaxx. We both know what he looks like. He is expected perhaps etc. For the sake of analogy!

superhumanist:
Lol. They don't realise it that they are changing.

Butterflyl1on no later Nigeria argues like a Christian. He is now arguing like a deist.

Vaxx is now trying to be logical albeit failing.

They have preconceived ideas but do not want to face the fact that the twig they see in the eyes of others is actually a forest in their own eyes.

They are changing alright though, albeit very slowly.

vaxx:
i have given enough explanations on axioms, i still do not know why you can get it. you are just a person i cannot just ignore, but on this particular subject. i am done

You are not done! Years from now, if that's how long it takes, you and I will still be on this (axioms) just like we are with obj/subj! The reason is the implications, which will always arise! There is a reason you cannot ignore buda!



The evidence for a self evident thing is the fact that it is evident! its evidency is proof!

vaxx:
The analogy is using is faulty for two reasons......1 first do you both have the same objective personality of whom vaxx is.....maybe you are both seeing vaxz for the first time....how will you judge that this is indeed vaxx...


2.... Let's assume you both know vaxx but it happens to see vaxx coming before you and he pointed that this is vaxx coming. How sure is he that you will not have your own subjective evidence of whom vaxx should be? Which might not even be the same with him.....both of you can only agree for the sake of mental convinency that vaxx should be this and that.....

Please stop with this stupid! You may as well claim we don't agree on the meaning of the words "coming towards", and my "coming towards" is sc's "going away from"!

The analogy assumes we both agree on who vaxx is and what he looks like! And the meaning of "coming towards" is coming towards (just in case you.......)

superhumanist:
It is actually clear that you have no idea what "self evident" means.

The bone of contention is whether there is need to prove a self evident claim. Nothing else.



Budaatum, you owe me one beer for dealing with vaxx

Oh, trust me, it takes more than that. One is dealing with a people who opened one eye, looked at something and then squeezed their eyes shut and refuse to take another look. It is difficult to make them open their eyes to look again and see that what they thought they saw is not what is actually there. To make it harder, the above is what they think one does!

So, more grease. Their eyes will open eventually. They have no choice! Then one drink. Nay, two, considering the effort we will have put in. I promise.

vaxx:
whao....good response

That said. And if you agree with sc. You might understand why you might need to provide some evidence for the validity of axioms. Some people might not want to take your word for it!

ScienceWatch:
BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.

Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.

You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.

Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."

vaxx:
self evidence is tantamount to unseen, persomal experience, subjective stand and it cannot be enough in the court of law.... Bro.......I need to go for my swimming class

And also, self evidence is not tantamount to unseen! It is just my personal experience

I may be by myself, and see vaxx coming towards me. The fact that no one corroborates what I see does not mean I have not seen you!

vaxx:
self evidence is tantamount to unseen, persomal experience, subjective stand and it cannot be enough in the court of law.... Bro.......I need to go for my swimming class

I have not just presented you with one self evidence, however!

Self evident to me, who says "sc, see vaxx", becomes self evident to me and self evident to sc.
I see you. My witness sc sees you. We therefore have evidence from 2 people!

Is that enough in your court?

ScienceWatch:
BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.

Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.

So, I point to vaxx walking towards us, and that is not sufficient evidence for you, because I am an atheist?

Does the fact I am an atheist make you blind?

ScienceWatch:
You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.

Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."

I don't remember saying "self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective". But I should have said it and hope I did, because I agree with the statement. If a thing is only evident to me, it is not sufficient for me to convince others it is there (well, unless I am their god and they believe whatever I tell them!). But, lets look at my example above.

I say, "vaxx is coming". (Subjective view of mine)

You say, "where?" (Requesting objective evidence)

I point to vaxx whom is walking towards us (Presenting the object vaxx)

You see vaxx - if indeed he is walking towards us and the atheist is not just lying (Objective evidence seen!)

The fact is that if you see vaxx coming towards us, the evidence is no more the sole "self observable evidence" of mine. It becomes the "evidence observable by you too", i.e., Objective, as in, seen by any other subject irrespective of your stupid subjective biases!

MuttleyLaff:
Yes, the tree of life wasn't off-limits like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was.

But you are aware that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil eventually became absent but the tree of life lives on its presence, aren't you?

Yes, I can see how the tree of life is said to live on. It is what is inferred in Christ's Everlasting Life. We'll perhaps learn what this means as we journey through this Gospel.

MuttleyLaff:
My signature? Which one? Which part of it?

"The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off " - Gloria Steinem

Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]" GoT

vaxx:
faith simply means unproven believe that is hold to be true,

axioms means self evident that cannot be proven....


how are they are not similar? both of them are base on thought process....

Yeah, I thought as much. Your definition of faith is simply the rewording of "believing in things unseen".

Those two statements are not similar vaxx. They are in fact saying the opposite of each other.

A self evident thing is not unseen! The fact that it is evident implies it has been seen. The seeing is the proof of the validity. They are believed to be true only because they have been seen to be true. And hence are taken to be true by faith in the fact that anyone would see they are true, within the parameters in which they are proposed.

The problem is your use of the word "faith", and your reluctance to see that axioms are accepted on very particular criteria, or else, the axioms, "science rests on faith", and "buda has two heads", and 1+2=2+1, are all as valid axioms as any other. Basically, any statement can be an axiom, which we both agree is invalid.

What I wondered when I asked you to explain was that the "faith" you meant was not the religious "faith in unseen things". You have attempted to separate your faiths, but not sufficiently enough for my personal liking. You might not mind the mistake being made, but I guess I need the error not to be made that the faith of your science is not the faith of the religious.

The religious want to treat their postulates as axioms, and the evidence they provide for the validity of their 'axioms' is the supposed 'self evident word of god'! A problem arises because not everyone accepts the premises by which the religious accepts the written word of god. Some people do not accept the postulates of the religious as axioms because they do not fit particular criteria.

You claim axioms are self evident, yet claim they cannot be proven. Now that's funny. If I see vaxx coming towards me, I'll say, "I see vaxx coming towards me". Assume now that sciencewatch says "prove it", I just point to vaxx coming towards me. It would be odd if sc says, "that's not proof", since it is self evident. The evidence for proving that "vaxx is coming towards me", is the self observable evidence that Vaxx is indeed, at that particular moment, coming towards me!

The same goes for 2+1=1+2. It is self evident that every 2, added to every one, is equal to every 1 added to every 2. And any attempt to produce a different result using the same criteria - the agreed understanding of what 1 and 2 represent - will evidently fail.

The phrase, "axioms are self evident", does not mean they cannot be proved, as you wish to believe it to mean. It simply means that the evidence to prove axioms is that they are evident; that no more proof than, "Can't you see?" suffices. Axioms are only accepted because they are seen to hold true. Anyone looking at them would see that they are as described. The proof of the pudding, as is said, is in its eating. And yes, it is acceptable and reasonable to have faith in the evidence of things one sees.

Before an axiom is accepted as an axiom, some evidence to its validity must have been presented as evidence. In fact, you will find that scientists go to some extreme rigour to prove or disprove axioms. They are called axioms because all attempts to falsify them fail, yet the most compelling validity for their holding is evident, you can see for yourself.

But like I said, the fact you claim I do not know what I'm talking about shows how much of it you hear. Enjoy Sunday.

vaxx:
i repeat Science is built upon on unprovable set of philosophical assumptions. and i gave example of axioms... you said it can be tested.... i am still awaiting your response on it..... if you do additional mathematics where you have to prove the answer, the proven answer will be supported by the theorem which base its self evidence on axioms, what i mean here is axioms is the benchmark of any provable answer, therefore it cannot be falsify..

The great faith that holds science together is the assumptions that there is objective external reality and every hidden aspect of nature can be unlock by human intelligence...

your further post still show you do not really understood what axioms is.... i will do my best to explain a little here...'' axioms are assumptions accepted and chosen by individual scientific workers is certainly a fact but only a superficial one. A more penetrating notion is that while scientific axioms are continuous with the assumptions of everyday thinking they are factors necessary in carrying on intellectual and scientific work. Whether known or unknown to the worker no intellectual work can be organized into a system of interpretation and explanation without the operation of axioms as basic assumptions. In a notable sense scientific work attains its meaning and significance largely in the measure of its deliberate inclusion of assumptions guiding the work''.http://web.utk.edu/~wverplan/kan...

Even Richard darkwins( most famous atheist) accept that axioms is an assumption that can never be proven or tested http://richarddawkins.net/articl... at this junction if you are not getting it, there is nothing i can do

Axioms are not statements we're claiming without proving them. They set out the rules of a game that we'd like to play. The rules of a game can't be "true" or "false"; that's a type error. They can be interesting or uninteresting. i think this where you have the problem... treating axioms as statement, it is just a rules that should be follow.... one of the axioms of playing snookers is do not play the black ball first, it is set standard for the game, you can not prove nor disprove why it should be so.

you keep on conflating the definition of faith to the teaching of the bible, only FSM knows why you are doing so ... i have given you the faith definition according to science, i expect you to work around it...

hope you are not conflating hypothesis with axioms....?

hypothesis is the first approach in scientific investigation, it is consider an intelligence guess that work around some set of created axioms model
to develop its own theorem.... it is when this theorem agree with the axioms model that it can be called a theory. using the theory of relativity as an example.... i will implore you to read extensively. on it...... Am sure you should be able to see your own error here..... pens up

vaxx:
ok i will....since we all have different perspective , science work with axioms  which aid in experimental of  data and logical deduction . these axioms can not be proved and without it science will be meaningless...

If you a lover of Scientific procedure and you do not  understand how all scientific findings rest on a foundation of unprovable assumptions, the axioms, then  there is a big gap in your basic understanding of how Science works. the starting point of science investigation is rested on assumptions.... there is a coined name for it . it is called hypothesis.

This assumptions is rested on two gigantic faith principle... it goes thus

1 Principle of intelligibility (that secrets of nature can be unlocked by human mind).

2 Principle of objectification. (that all of human experience can be objectified).

so whenever uncertain principle are discover , science suffer a major blow..... for example why is big bang not repeatable, why does it happen once. instead of continues time and so on

You can read further from here ......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F

Thank you. I believe I showed my objections to your main premises already, but instead of elaborating you chose to insult my intelligence! 

What's funny is that you fling at one, words that may be applied to yourself. Except if I do apply them to you it can only be as a ruse to avoid seeing my very own error and thinking no evidence is required for my axiomatic statements, because, they are, self evident!

Anyone with an ounce of sense would just about turn around and claim "it is an axiom, that axioms must have been found to be valid for them to be axioms in the first place"! Or else buda could claim "buda has two heads", is an axiom", and since axioms need not be tested nor proven, it is indeed therefore, an axiomatic truth that, "buda has two heads", and by nature of axioms, it is a true and valid statement! Oh, and since we need not test axioms, lets not bother counting how many heads buda has, the axiom states, two, so buda has two heads!

Oh, come on, of course I am not being circularly ridiculous and obtuse!

But here's the funnier thing. Since axioms require no evidence or proof, as you believe, it is therefore acceptable for you to assert, as an axiom, that, "‎science evidence rests on faith", and not provide evidence for the validity of your statement. For since you believe axioms must be accepted as valid truths that can not be proved anyway, you do not therefore have to provide evidence, and I should accept it 'by faith'.

No, surely not obtuse and ridiculously circular!

‎Any atheist would see you using the god people logic of, "It is true because the Bible says so". But since atheists are, well, who listens to atheists, right!‎

I post here definition‎s of "hypothesis". Not so much for you, but for others whom it may concern.
‎
‎hypothesis‎ [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] /haɪˈpɒθ əˌsiz, hɪ-/.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.‎

‎A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method‎ requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]‎

I propose that your statement, "‎science evidence rests on faith", is not an axiom, by any sense. It is at best, "a hypothesis". At the least, that is what it appears to be to me, and I have treated it as one by asking you to provide evidence to support its validity.

Thanks for the conversation. I would have liked to ask you to dump the, "you, buda, an atheist, is a fool" innuendos, but I guess its par for the course with you, and at the moment you do not see yourself doing it. I'll pray though.‎ I know, someday, your eye will open. (That is my hypothesis. It is not a valid theory until I test and prove it!)

MuttleyLaff:
My signature? Which one? Which part of it?

You shouldn't limit yourself to the bits in purple alone, because remember you wrote:
"Behold, the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil!"
aiming to equate the Word as being beheld as the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,
when in actual fact, the Word is the Tree of Life

Yep, awareness, sure indeed increased. The good, the bad and the ugly flooded in

I see your point. And would have to reconsider. I suppose they ate of the fruit of that tree, as it wasn't forbidden to them. Will research it and come back to you.

MuttleyLaff:
When one puts on righteousness as a clothing, you'll be cool with whatever your unclothedness is
The moment one takes off righteousness as a clothing, one wont be happy and will hide

I agree with you totally
The phrase "the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil", as a matter of fact, actually is a merism.

The Good in "the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil" signifies, all that's beautiful in life
and the Evil in "the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil" signifies, all that's about adversities in life

Without mincing words, whoever eats of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil,
is going to be forced to deal with a whole gamut of beautiful and adversity
Dont take my word for it, go check out the meaning of "towb" (i.e. the original word Good was translated from)
and "ra" (i.e. the original word Evil was translated from)

Totally devoid of conscious states of awareness?
But before the fall from grace, Adam was aware of Eve
But before the fall from grace, both Adam and Eve were aware of the tree

You seem to be conflating persons here, combining John the Baptist, together with, John, the brother of James

John the Baptist, said: "Behold, the Lamb of God..."
meaning:
"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Meanwhile, John, the brother of James, reliving what he beheld, as in what he saw in company of Peter and James,
in seeing Jesus transfigured before them, said, they, the three, have seen:
"We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son,"

I've limited myself to the bits in purple. Yes. I notice your signature is a refererence to this fact. It is echoed in the Gospel of Thomas, and experienced by Saul on the way to Damascus.

Ok, maybe not totally devoid. Some other text claim Adam named all other animals, so a level of consciousness must have entailed. I think we are in agreement that awareness increased.

As to who first saw the lamb, well,.......

sonofluc1fer:
What game? Tell me chess pls..

Yep, chess.

vaxx:
You are just showing there is no element of truth in your assertions...... ( not an intended insult) it just an observation

Maybe you need to check how numbers and letter were first formed...., maybe you need to read versed on what is called axioms.....but if you know and you intentionally decide to display mental gymnastics on it......then this is very shocking to me.....


Maybe, I will suggest further reading .....read about axioms in mathematical philosophy , read about Euclid elements..... Pls do... How can you prove axioms mathematically, how will you prove it within the constraint of science..... This is a serious fallacy on your part....

Anyway you said axioms can be tested not me.....can you be kind enough to show me how? You should defend it..... even a quick search on axioms on google should tell you it cannot be proven, but it is more true than conjecture and even theorem..... how can you prove an element that serves as a basis for all proof, then it is no more axioms again...... abeg you need to read further? do you even proof tautology?1 + 2=2+1..... prove this to me? axioms is setting constraint for mathematician to follow, is the unproven evidence that buttress proof. i cannot explain better bro

All that you say above may well be true, however, I do not see any particular portion of it that goes towards showing that "Science evidence rested on faith".

Now, perhaps you think buda knows all. Well, let me inform you that buda does not know all. Buda learns. And all this irrelevant stuff you are throwing at me just confuses my tiny brain more when all I asked for is that you present whatever it is that makes you posit as a valid axiom that "Science evidence rested on faith", (to which you now make me think is even "unproven faith" like the just holding something to be a certain way without any corresponding evidence for it!). Yet here you are asking me to prove things to you first!

Call me whatever names you want. I'm a big girl and can handle it. But stop this your dancing around and just show me what I requested.

Place the title of the post with the evidence in bolded red so I don't miss it.

Do note that until I receive what I requested, this dance stops!

budaatum:
I'll say, "explain yourself".

So, explain yourself please.

Vaxx, how is "Science evidence rested on faith"?

MuttleyLaff:
Coolio

What state? Which state? Is it the pre-Genesis:3-7 state or the Genesis:3-7 state?
There are at least two states
1) There was a state, they knew they had clothedness, and were cool with it
2) and there was a state, they knew about unclothedness to an extent, and got disturbed about knowing this

There is no indication in the text from which I can say 1 applies. I have no evidence to suggest they were cool with their unclothedness. What the text implies is that they became aware that they had been unclothed and they were not happy that they were.

MuttleyLaff:
Coolio
In a laboured way, it is some sort of "'Light" albeit, in regards, to the Knowledge of Good
but what about, in regards to the Knowledge of Evil?
After all, it was a tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, wasnt it?
A combination?, as it were

The text says, "God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened. You'll be like God, knowing good and evil." So, I assume they got to know both good and evil, both of which the text implies they were not, prior to that, conscious of.

Kind of makes me think they could have been like apes. Totally devoid of conscious states of awareness.

MuttleyLaff:
It was, the three inner caucus disciples, as in, Peter, James, and John, that, at first, beheld the glory of Jesus

Ok. Though, the text points to John the Baptist becoming aware of Christ. And then making others aware of him when he told them to "Behold, the Lamb of God". Perhaps being conscious of Jesus, and becoming aware of Jesus' Glory, are separate incidences. I can live with that.

vaxx:
Axioms only set a constraint to work on, it is nether prove nor disproven.. And without it there is no science....


Am holding you on this very statement..... Axioms can be tested..... pls Google and send me any links of how axioms is tested.... I wanner see. read the wiki again pls....

Google for "Axiom testing". Read some of the stuff that comes up. You may cherry pick. That's my evidence that axioms are tested.

Letters are real. If I combine some of them together in the following order:

"Vaxx unfairly accuses me of dishonesty, and I am hurt."

Your response, also presented in letters combined in a certain order, will show that I have used them to represent a thought and that you understand what I mean. Hence, I would not be wrong to claim the letters which convey a thought that I had have been relayed to you, which by effect, must exist, since I have made use of them and you too are aware of them and use them to respond!

If I add a, any number - for that is what the letters infer - to another number represented by b, the result will be the same as if I took the number represented by b and added it to the one represented by a. Essentially, 1 + 2 = 2 + 1. Hence self evident under the parameters that a and b represent discrete numbers (in this particular case).

Without axioms, science does not begin. An axiom has to be postulated, scientific rigour is then used to test its validity. If it holds true, we may use it as an axiomatic foundation for further axioms. If it fails to continue to be true, we discard it. We must therefore test all assertions to decide whether we keep them as axioms or throw them in the axiomatic dust bin.

Please stop making accusation as if you are asserting axioms that are true. I specifically asked you to post the bit from wiki that expressed what you meant. Axioms has many meanings in many different fields, so cherry pick please. Just let me know which meaning you have chosen.

MuttleyLaff:
Did you type "unclothedness"?
Or is it one of those amazing miracles that happen on Nairaland where what you type gets changed to a sanitised equivalent word version
If you did, do type "unclothedness" verbatim, then explain what you mean by:
Adam and Eve became conscious of their unclothedness
What is "unclothedness"
If Adam and Eve became conscious of there unclothedness, then they must before have been conscious of clothedness of some sort, do you accept

I did type "unclothedness", to get around the sanitiser.

I take the actual verse in the Bible to mean "they lacked awareness of the state they were in"

MuttleyLaff:
I still dont see the correlation between
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
and
Behold, the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil!

Nor the behold, the fruit bit too

Behold, as in, 'become conscious (and aware)" of that which was at the beginning, and is, and always will be..

I personally hold that the "In the beginning" in Genesis, and in The Gospel of John, are connected. The Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil is some sort of 'Light" both it, and John's Word, enable seeing (awareness, consciousness).

We have the whole of John to find an answer to your last question. The simple, off the cuff, not think too much response, however is that which some call Christ.

ScienceWatch:
It is good to see you too !!!!
Now you are screwing my head too, when you ask "What is truth."

Good. It shows you are thinking.

ScienceWatch:
You will remember that the cruel Pontius Pilate asked Jesus the same question. "What is truth."

Yes I remember. It is, in a sense, what we spend so much time here trying to resolve.

MuttleyLaff:
Genesis 3:7 is a galloping verse, with lots of dots in it though

I can see, do see, how you are trying to align John 1:14 with Genesis 3:7
however elaborate with further detail what you mean by:
"... conscious of things again, just like Adam and Eve were"

Adam and Eve became conscious of their unclothedness, amongst other things. "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us", is another instance of a making humans consciously aware.