₦airaland Forum

It's apparently untrue. But that won't matter to you.

https://www.nairaland.com/8658920/lagos-confirms-solar-permit-fees#139185330

benalvino3:
Solar Tax?

This is the one time I will support mob justice. Anytime these are seen, they should be jumped.

If them come my street ehn.

https://twitter.com/TrendingEx/stat us/2046877134333866312

Maybe his ambassadorship to Mexico is the bribe to shut his mouth.

IjeBos:
I generally don't argue facts with people on this thread anymore, but I do find unbridled mockery to be worth it.

Mockery is really all maga deserve.

One would think the EFCC lawyer, Henry Anaso, would ask the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant who refused to turn up in court. Instead the EFCC lawyer is praying for another date as if he is the defendant's lawyer!

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Wednesday, EFCC lawyer, Henry Anaso, informed the court that the agency was having difficulties to secure the attendance of the defendants.

He, therefore, prayed the court for another date.

The defendants were not in court, neither were they represented by any lawyer.

Modern women go to school to get educated so they can work and earn their own money. Ancient women learnt a trade to earn their own money because they knew they couldn't rely on manna from man or heaven. Stupid people, male and female, marry each other and wail when they can not provide or be provided for.

The men mostly wail at government.

armyofone:
Dayo, hope you are getting tarriff refunds for all your hardwork here

He does not mind paying the tariff tax.

IjeBos:
I do agree they are seeking attention.
But it's also a double edged sword.
As we saw with Trump the absence of push back creates a vacuum where the false information flourishes.

There was push back against dump. It was just the wrong push back. He got Democrats pushing back against men in womens' toilets for instance, and that just added fuel to his nonsense.

But hey! Do you please. My own time is far too precious than to be using it to push back against the few sniterc who don't live in the country and don't have a vote or a brain.

Maeve7:
I can’t believe an old man has nothing better to do than troll like this.

I'm finding it difficult to understand why intelligent people will allow themselves to be trolled like that!

One person is "people form", or are you describing yourself?

Greatzeus:
Imagine being in the US of A, a land of endless opportunities and freedom,where you can be anything and everything you want if you work hard. Instead sex was your problem?

There's lots on Nairaland who sex is their 'ambition'.

They boast here about the sex in their account.

Dump should demand control to announce the winner!

SpencerForbes:
From the little digging I've done, ......

With a toothpick?

Smithwilliams826:
this guy dumb Sha. Read John 1:1, John 8vs 58.

And you can't seem to reason it seems.

Next you'd be telling us Jesus was Moses.

Smithwilliams826:
Leviticus 18:22

Was Jesus born when Leviticus 18:22?

Which school did you go to?

obembet:
Over to Obedient and lover of trump.... This Is a good example for diehard Israel Lovers.

Sad thing is that Israel never knew they exist

I am obidient. Dump dump!

I need a list of "bandits and their sponsors behind killings and kidnappings across Nigeria" so I can check what happens to any of them after his seven days are up please.

Thank you in advance.

Have you considered creating it as a mod that users can download and incorporate themselves since the Nairaland owners seem to abhor innovation?

I play City:Skylines, and modders create mods that players can download and use despite the game creators' ambivalence.

https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/browse/?appid=255710

I am considering becoming a Muslim because I can not condone the genocide that Israel and USA are committing.

KobolanderSegun:
Sadly in life women get what they bargain for. A woman who cannot see a user or a manipulative man within one week is mostly because she has the same tendencies. Birds of a feather flock together

You make it sound easy to detect a scammer in one week.

Are you yourself that good a detective?

Your opposition to your own infinite regress argument began with the idea that everything must have a cause.

There is the universe. There is your causer of the universe. And by your own premise, there must therefore be a creator of your causer. And that creator of your causer must have a creator of its own.

Note that's no where near infinity of creators and just three levels deep.

You are not the only one on Nairaland, Deep. Others read what you don't.

DeepSight:
+
I only looked at a few opening lines of paragraphs here because I cant see the point in this discussion or devoting time and energy to it. I also believe you have become emotional about it. I will only point out that you were the one defending the possibility of an infinite regress and I am the one saying it is impossible. That suffices to collapse all that you are saying. An infinite regress remains impossible in a causal chain because if it were the case, "today" would not exist, "now" would not exist. This is iron clad logic like I said, and no amount of grammar can wish it away. Good morning.

SpyMaster1:
Many readers notice this feels like a completely different voice — almost like a later editor added it to wrap up the bleakness with a traditional religious conclusion.

Sorry Spymaster1, but I do not think that "Many readers notice this feels like a completely different voice", unless you are opportuned to find your "many readers" are not Christians who believe what they are told to believe instead of becoming as a child and abandoning beliefs so they can read it with an unbiased mind.

Most Bible readers I come across are Christians who believe, and are not able to read with their own eyes and understand with their own mind like you seem to be doing, I dare say. Golly! You even claim "like a later editor added it", as if God did not write the book himself, as some believe.

My advise to you is, please heed the words of one who said, "Forgive them, for they have not got a clue what they read"! Though I confess that's not easy.

DeepSight:
+
The ad hominems are all yours and I am left suspecting you still have an ax to grind, But that is your cup of tea.
As for the infinite regress problem, nothing can change the fact that if you start from negative infinity you will never arrive at 1. That is iron clad and a million words from ignorance, hurt or pride will do nothing to change it.

You are very wrong! Though there is absolutely no reason to start from negative infinity when one can start at 0 minus 1. Or can you not subtract 1 from zero?

The universe as known has been dated to have begun about 14 billion years ago at time zero, and saying there was no time before 14 billion years ago is like claiming the universe was spontaneously caused into existence at point zero and here we are 14 billion years later. You however can not make such a claim, but insist there must have been a causer of the universe. And by your own argument, is it not logical to presume that your causer must have existed before 14 billion years ago in order to cause the universe into existence 14 billion years ago?

In fact, whose to say your causer did not itself exist 14 billion years or even for "eternity" before it began causing and before the universe itself came into existence 14 billion years later? Whose even to say that there was no creator of the causer who existed 140 billions years before your causer was caused, if we want to make things up to believe?

An agnostic and an atheist would say, we do not know what might have existed and for how long it existed prior to the universe coming into existence, but that's not your position. Instead, deist you inserts a timeless imaginary immaterial entity at some point where your knowledge stops and you call that point "negative infinity".

Point is, negative infinity is rather pointless as far as the supposed 14 billion year old universe is concerned. You yourself are limiting yourself to the day or even second before the universe came into existence when you invoke a causer of the universe, which is just another word for god or an intelligent designer, whom you claim is immaterial and timeless, which I presume means it 'existed' for an infinite amount of time before it began causing. And you can not engage with the notion that while something big may have existed before the universe banged into existence, since something has to exist to go bang, it is not necessarily a (creator) causer. Then you confuse your own argument by appealing to an imaginary causer that you claim must have existed before the universe existed, and you call it a first causer while denying it is a creator god, lol, when it can easily just have been an increase in pressure or whatnot.

Do you not see that your claim is no different to that made by Christians when they say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was a big bang, and there was light?

Would you argue that the imaginary made up Spirit of God did not spend a very very long time creating the heavens before then creating the earth about 14 billion years ago?

But of course you wouldn't. After all, you are a deist, you claim, so Theo could not have caused the universe into existence because your first causer Deo cause it!

You can imagine ax grinding your tea as much as you want, deep, that is your prerogative. it bothers nor concerns me not.

DeepSight:
+
Lets just forget it.

You may just forget whatever you want to just forget, but do not expect buda to do what you choose to do.

I so like Nairaland because whatever we say is there till Nairaland dies, which I hope is long after I die. So even if you choose to forget, the reminder will always be here.

DeepSight:
+
Its fine. I wouldn't have suspected you of this agbero approach to a delicate discussion with so many insults and all, its just no use.
I used to be deist, but today I simply say I dont know. I am agnostic.

I feel you do not quite realise that claiming one does not understand is agbero approach. It's condescending and patronising and rude and insulting, and you should be able to accept the coins you dish out. Or do you think I am too thick to notice?

For your information, you have not once said you don't know, despite me repeatedly offering it as way out for you here, since neither of us can possibly know what happened a million years ago not to talk of when the universe came into existence or before then!

You have in fact been claiming you do know, because, "infinite regression", and you insult me for not accepting your beliefs as knowledge! An agnostic would not peddle beliefs. At best they'd say what they think, but they definitely wouldn't be asking one to believe what they believe like theists do.

I think you are still a deist, which is really just another word for theist without the god worship. And it makes me think of my Lordreed who took a while to abandon his theist language after becoming an atheist. You, on the other hand, haven't bothered to de-deify, and still talk in deist language, and can not understand my atheist language and therefore must ad hominem and moan when dished what you serve.

DeepSight:
+
I doubt that you understand it from some of the things you say, such as invoking FSM.

Nonetheless we have not even scratched the surface of the matter. Sadly we can't because as I said we are not speaking the same language. If we were, we could explore it and get to ask questions that touch on the nature of eternity, self existence and immaterial things. Those are deep stuff and when you say wuruwuru it's clear we can't have even a proper attempt at it. It's fine.

Deep, we are not speaking the same language is the entire point! But see how you slyly imply that I can not understand "deep stuff", lol, like I am braindead or mentally challenged, when the truth is your argument is as illogical as the baseless Kalam Cosmological Argument that has been propounded since Aristotle and dumped by most except theologists who make crap up to believe.

And that's why you'd need to put effort in to understand instead of rehashing what any atheist worth the salt would just laugh at when raised. Or do you seriously believe you are the first to throw such crap at me on Nairaland?

Note I asked you to explain eternity, but you can not or at least have not. It's theological gobbledegook as far as this conversation goes and as far as I am concerned, unless you define what you mean by it but haven't.

Inserting an immaterial nonexistent entity in the gap of your knowledge and claiming it exists is indeed wuruwuru, and is no different to what theists do with their imaginary Yahweh and Allah and angels and spirits, and is what I have done with my spaghetti monster, which you can not accept. I wonder why.

Question though, because I'm curious and do not want to assume.

Do you consider yourself to be a theist?

Israeli soldiers are saving the Christ from the Hezbollah!

DeepSight:
+
It's obvious it's not useful to press the point. We are not even speaking the same language.

Obviously, lol. Though I do very clearly understand your point, which I vehemently disagree with.

Deepsight, please know that I do not assume that you do not understand my own point. I think you do understand my point because I believe I have explained it well enough to be understood, and I consider you capable of understanding my point.

You disagree with my point, and that's okay. It would be very stupid of me to think you are stupid and or don't understand my point just because you disagree with my point.

Do note.

DeepSight:
+
I think your post shows that you dont quite follow the first cause argument and also that you make some very wrong assumptions about it. I will explain. .

That is your assumption, and you are free to have it. My own view is people say the above when they are disagreed with.

DeepSight:
+
Here are the assumptions and wrongs in your understanding. I will keep them brief.

1. You assume that all believers in the first cause argument see that first cause as the beginning of the physical universe or the big bang. I for one dont. For me, the first cause would be immaterial and self existent..

This is your assumption. My understanding is that your first cause caused the universe to come into existence, the Big Bang merely being what scientists refer to as that instance when existence (as known) began. Scientists will also tell you that they do not know what preceded the coming into existence of the universe as known.

And that's why I asked you what caused the first cause to come into existence and then cause the universe to exist, which you wuruwuru into immaterial existence all by itself without even providing any evidence of its existence. And the fact that you call it a "belief" is why I give it short shrift, since you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

It's after all not like I can't choose to believe the Spaghetti Monster done it if that's what I want to believe. But asking you to believe it too might be difficult for me, I'd think, especially if I claim it is immaterial and self existent but can't provide any evidence of its immateriality nor existence apart from my say so that it does exist immaterially.

But lets try it, shall we.

An immaterial fairy exists at the bottom of my garden! It's there because I believe it's there.

You buying?

DeepSight:
2. You imagine that a first cause implies that one thinks such a cause spontaneously came into existence in itself. This betrays a deep misapprehension of the argument. If you look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a reference, it very carefully states "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause." It does not say "all that exists has a cause.".

Thing is, it is claimed that there was a big bang and the universe as is known came into existence, and not many would not argue that the big bang did not have a cause, sunce something big must have existed to go bang. But instead of stopping there, you now invent an immaterial uncaused causer and claim it must have existed.

Why?

Can't you just accept that we do not know what caused what caused the big bang (if there was a big bang, that is)?

And why anthropomorphize it and call it a causer?

Please know that atheist me does not buy into the Kalam Cosmological Argument!

DeepSight:
+
Some things are uncaused. They are necessary and self existent. What would you say caused eternity for example?.

This is just absurd!

What is eternity?

Does eternity self exist?

Where or and how does eternity exist?

DeepSight:
+
We have to be very careful with words here (while appreciating that the words we have are limited in such a delicate matter). Because a cause in this matter would be different from a rationale. A cause would be a trigger whereas a rationale will simply be an explanation. A trigger would necessarily be an event while an explanation may not be an event, it may refer to a static state of things or reality which does not change..

You don't say, "We have to be very careful with words here" lol.

I'd say we must be very careful indeed! I'd go even further and say one must not include gobledygook in serious conversation, but we'd only end up arguing what gobledygook is.

Are you claiming your first cause was a trigger, like my something big that might have existed to trigger a bang?

The scientist in my would agree if that's what you mean.

Its like claiming the gully of a river is caused by the water that flows. Or pepper in my eyes made tears fall down my face. They may indeed "cause", but I wouldn't then call them causers, especially if by cause you mean create, since they merely activated a process and did not necessarily create the situation that made the process occur or be what is observed.

DeepSight:
Of course and pivoting to the real question: surely you agree that we could never arrive at today if the causes of today rest in an infinite regress of causes, same as you could never arrive at Number one if you are counting from negative infinity. This is simply put enough to be absorbed.

This is meaningless, sorry! And its a lame attempt to gaslight!

You have not arrived at enough causes before inserting your causer, is the problem I have with it.

If I wanted to be absurd, its like claiming women get pregnant when a mare farts, which was a belief once held by some before they looked deeper.

You, like them, have not looked deep enough and are claiming infinite regression, is my main objection.

DeepSight:
+
What he said was simple and true (the second argument) unless you want to show me how to arrive at 1 counting from minus infinity.

Numbers do not have infinity. There is always a plus or minus 1 from whatever you determine infinity to be.

We struggle to determine what actually happened a million years ago, so speculation is what we do further back than that since we just do not know. Humans are however not satisfied with not knowing so they insert an immaterial causer in the gap of their knowledge, and buda is far too ignorant to do that, sorry .

Brendaniel:
Read what you wrote again from the beginning and see if any of the examples you wrote there looks exactly like Nigeria, ever country you listed all have their standing governments independent from each other and any member state has the right to walk away without going to war like Britain did to EU.

Is that the same with Nigeria?

Do you people ever learn?

Nigeria has its standing government, and can leave its equivalent of EU, which is the African Union or that of West Africa, though we'd likely regret it just as UK is regretting leaving EU and is trying to rejoin.

What you can not do is a region in Nigeria leaving Nigeria, just as Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland can not leave the United Kingdom unless it is democratically voted for in a recognised referendum, which UK is unlikely to offer and abide by just as Nigeria isn't.

For a region in Nigeria to hold a referendum for any split you'd first need to elect majority senators and representatives who are campaigning and offering a referendum, and you might have noticed that none of them is campaigning for your vote on that basis.

I suggest you learn this!

QuinQQ:
Very, very valid points. However (there's always a however ), the danger with vast majority of people is total lack of any original thought whatsoever that is based entirely on their own direct experience. But you do make lots and lots of sense.

Such people believe what they read and do not bother to understand first, but I think my posts will show that I am not "vast majority of people".

In fact, the books I quote the most are the Bible and the Quran, but I do not believe either book. And only a fool would believe Heidegger, who's Being and Time is a description of the "vast majority of people" so one can know and decide for oneself if one wants to be one of them.