₦airaland Forum

Monogamy:
That's a joke right?

Only if the majority decide we are jokers.
Its a democratic decision.

budaatum:
I think we should consider forming the Nairaland Democratic Party, and nominate members for all political positions.

If we get ourselves elected as Reps and Senators, we may make a difference.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/13187570_screenshot20210224145633_jpegdeedba4fdc2bae0ee8bab0b598ea83bd

Join by following to indicate an interest for nomination and support for your campaign.

I think we should consider forming the Nairaland Democratic Party, and nominate members for all political positions.

If we get ourselves elected as Reps and Senators, we may make a difference.


Clink to join the Nairaland Democratic Party

I'm beginning to lose respect for this guy Sowore.

Instead of super organising like Georgia's Stacey Abrams: The woman behind Biden's biggest surprise and using democracy to fight the battle to mend Nigeria, he is doing aluta like an ignorant juvenile in a Nigerian uni hell bent on not learning.

I'm not impressed at all!

Thanks for the post. He makes me proud.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12851549_notable02284_jpeg28f689a4e008cceda85e10373b6aa6a7

LordReed:
You are only focused on some grand purpose. Purpose does not have to be grand, you can have several limited purposes. I have a purpose this morning of attending a meeting, once that meeting is over that purpose ends. Same with eating, it ends once hunger is satisfied.

I had a purpose to sleep at some point and have since become the beneficiary of that purpose.

HellVictorinho:
budaatum has a reason for posting XYZ.
But there is no reason why that reason exists in the head of budaatum.

So, what buda posts comes out of buda's head with no conscious effort or thought from buda?

I'm getting worried, Hell. Is that how your posts appear before me with no conscious thought or effort from Hell?

HellVictorinho:
You are just another group of indivisible ageless objects that form the pattern called budaatum for no reason.

Are you suggesting that the budaatum that consciously puts the effort in to discuss with you has no reason?

Please let buda know so buda can stop wasting buda's purposeful time please.

shadeyinka:
But shouldn't atheism necessarily gravitate towards nihilism?

Why? Can an atheist not love their child, or themself, or their neighbour or their car?

shadeyinka:
If all we do is be born, eat, grow, reproduce and die. Is there really a purpose for human existence.

Who lives by "all we do is be born, eat, grow, reproduce and die"? Do they not need food, or does the food just fall into their open mouth so they do not need to purposefully get it?

shadeyinka:
If we are just star dust, could there be a purpose to us?

You and your pointless "if"!

Are you just stardust, shadeyinka?

IamPlato:
if you are an evolutionist then you believe that something creates man... There is a starting point, in your own belief where is the starting point for man

First, I am not believer! One does not believe in evolution like it is some God, just as one does not believe in mathematics. One knows it as concept and one understands it. Think of it like gravity. You would not say one believes in gravity, or woud you?

Second. It is a known fact that the universe at a time had no life on it until life appeared somehow and it over time evolved into humans. After all, it is accepted knowledge that humans have not existed forever, no?

As for the "starting point" for humans, there isn't one in particular since evolution of humans happened over hundreds of thousands of years in different places on earth.

And note the following:

LordReed:
That is not the position of evolution. Evolution says nothing about creation.

shadeyinka:
It is impossible for a Tree to know it's purpose because it doesn't benefit directly from its own existence. But without the Tree, carbon cycle, oxygen cycle, food chain ceases to exist. On the earth, the trees purpose is to convert the solar radiation to food and oxygen for life to exist.

The first part is what I've been pointing out to you with the clock and the sun. But why the bit in bold? Can I not say the tree grew to provide shade for the ant, or to piss off the inhabitants of dogedona, or to produce a seed and grow offsprings?

shadeyinka:
A crankshaft has a purpose within a crankcase of an engine. It's purpose is to translate the linear motion of the piston into rotational motion.

Purpose is thus a fallacy without at least one beneficiary of the system!

Since a crankshaft does not make itself, I guess it can have a beneficiary who purposefully made it, but the same can not necessarily be said of a tree that could have grown just because a bird ate its seed and shat it into the soil the tree grew in.

crackhaus:
We see what we want to see, don't we?

Sorry, but not all of us see what we want to see. Some of us first make sure our eyes work properly before we even look.

shadeyinka:
Oh, thanks my dear Buda. Well refreshed. I believe you slept well too.

No, I have not slept. I was up all night reading and watching The Last Kingdom, and might sleep soon, but I am refreshed, for now.

shadeyinka:
I meant, if we agree that any system must have a purpose and several systems exist in the universe. Then a necessary conclusion should be that the universe has a purpose. If the universe has a purpose (even if we cannot comprehend it), there must be a beneficiary to such system.

The universe is far too big for me to make claims about, especially regarding whether it has a purpose or not, because even if it has one it has not fulfilled it yet and likely will not fulfil it in my lifetime, hence todays worries being sufficient for today.

shadeyinka:
It would be fallacy to conclude that we don't know if a beneficiary of the system exist. Hence I conclude that:

It would not only be a fallacy for me to not conclude that I do not know if a beneficiary of the universe exists, but intelligent people should inform me that I am very very stupid if I dared not!

Have you seen a beneficiary of the universe?

shadeyinka:
That is: can we admit that the Creator exist BUT we can't measure HIM (the Creator) on our laboratory scale

As in, I should admit what I can not perceive exists? Why? To deceive, perhaps? To make people think I have knowledge I know I do not have? To lie to myself like I accuse you of doing? To lie to you? Why don't I just admit I have a billion pounds in my wallet instead though I can not perceive a billion pounds in my wallet? I'm sure that would be far more useful to me.

Sorry, but that is not buda's way! And to be honest, if you continue to insist that buda becomes this way, I shall be taking a break from conversing with you. Be warned!

shadeyinka:
Aren't you contradicting yourself?

The statement was:

If a system must necessarily have a purpose, such purpose must be to the advantage, good or necessity of/for another entity or system.

No! A system may produce an outcome without intending to. A clock is a simple example. It has no purpose in its own right despite being a system of cogs that move. The clock does not say, I will tick so Shadeyinka may know what time it is. The sun is another. It rises and the plants grow. Not, the sun rises with the intent of growing plants.

shadeyinka:
Such benefits doesn't necessarily have to accrue to man.

Benefits implies "for". The cogs of the watch move not because it wants to tell you what time it is but because it has been designed so you can use it to tell what time it is. The plants may benefit from the rising of the sun but the sun does not rise for the benefit of the plants. The sun does not give a fuq about the plants that rely on it to grow and neither is the clock responsible for your timekeeping.

shadeyinka:
Electrons for example have the purpose of keeping an atom neutrally charged and useful for chemical reactions of the atom.

No, I would not put it that way. I would not say the electron has a purpose. But I must confess that my chemistry is like 30 years old. I can say the sun does not have the purpose of growing plants even though plants likely would not grow without the sun.

shadeyinka:
Thus we can say the nucleus of the atom "benefit" from the presence of electrons round it. [s]But this doesn't have a direct benefit to humans[/s].

Yes, benefit. But not necessarily purpose, as stated above regarding the sun and plants and clocks.

shadeyinka:
All we need is just one physical example of an infinite regression of cause and effect.

A lack of evidence is not proof. That said, there is mathematical proof, and as far as logic goes, that is sufficient evidence.

Go investigate Black Swans. It has theory on the subject.

shadeyinka:
If there exist no iota of example, then taking a position that an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible is a RECKLESS Belief!

First, there is lots of iota of example, and the fact you might be ignorant of its existence does not mean it does not exist. Maths is one. It is far more reckless to take a position that because one has not seen an iota of an example therefore none exists, unless you want to claim you surveyed everything and know it all and found no evidence.

This is the silly thing people do when they fill in the gap of their ignorance with gods! I called it wuruwuru to the answer in our previous discuss. A thing you do.

shadeyinka:
If we can't find a single example were an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible, then is it not reasonable to conclude (in the realm of the physical ) that there must exist a first cause!

Now you are really being absurd when you consider you can't find a single possibility of infinite regressions! Are you seriously trying to make me believe that your level of competence extends to the point that you can have surveyed possibilities to be able to say an infinite regression can not be found? You will forgive me, but you really have not shown that you are that knowledgeable for me to take your word for it. Your comments here alone are sufficient enough for me to know you do not know what you are talking about. I apologise for my rudeness.

shadeyinka:
The Universe is still changing and scientifically in future, it will attain equilibrium where no change is possible again!

It will? Got any evidence for this or are you asking buda to believe you have gone so far into the future so you know?

shadeyinka:
If the universe has an end, it must have a beginning. If it has a beginning, it must be caused for change to take place. This is possible is there exist a Primordial Cause!

Have you not noticed that buda does not do "if"?

Please, stick to the worries of today and stop with this crap you make up!

shadeyinka:
The UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE is very much like INFINITY. There is no specific number called infinity because you can always add 1 to such number. But Intellectually, we use infinity in our mathematical computations because even though it is no fixed number, it is useful in solving maths problem.

The fact you use it does not mean it exists. You may create Gods and a billion pounds inside your head but that does not make them exist outside your head.

shadeyinka:
It would be a fallacy for a mathematician to dismiss infinity from mathematics just because it is not a fixed number!

And mathematicians do not dismiss infinity, they just do not claim it is this or that or a first cause.

Good morning Sir. Hope you slept well.

shadeyinka:
Could it be that wise humans are too proud to admit that they are finite and limited in their capacity to know all things. For as you rightly said: "a system itself implies a purpose"

I am struggling to comprehend the above!

First, there is no "all things to know" for humans to know because there is always going to be an unknown tomorrow..Second, humans do not have finite ability to learn unless they are lazy.

shadeyinka:
Unfortunately, these two propositions

1. Can a system which operates in a self fulfilling cycle be purposeless?

This is very bad English! You call it a system, so it must operate, as in, do something, and that something it does is its purpose.

shadeyinka:
Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

Not necessarily. The system may operate without benefit accruing to any particular beneficiary even though there may be a benefit.

The earth does not go around the sun for your benefit though you may derive a benefit from the earth going around the sun.

I do not think you will agree with this however.

shadeyinka:
can only lead to one conclusion: an ultimate beneficiary of the overall system. For it is impossible to have an infinite regression of cause and effect!

And this here is the reason you will disagree.

It is not true that "it is impossible to have an infinite regression of cause and effect". And even if it is you have not gone far back enough to know, first, when to stop regressing, and second, the overall system.

This is perhaps the point where you apply wisdom and not be too proud to admit that while you definitely have an infinite capacity to learn a lot you have hardly begun learning so should not be inserting a belief as if it were knowledge.

shadeyinka:
For me, logically, an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE must somehow exist.

For you perhaps, but I see no reason to assume like you do that there was an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, nor can I claim creating crap in my head is logical. Perhaps its because I am wise enough to accept that I do not know, which is far more logical than filling the gaps in my knowledge with a belief!

shadeyinka:
Beyond this, I believe the Intellectual capacity of humans even though great cannot attain.

So you insert UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE because you believe you do not have the Intellectual capacity to learn so you may know?

Well, as long as you do not require that buda believe as you do, I will defer.

shadeyinka:
Note: just as we have proved that speeds exceeding the speed of light is impossible.

Actually, we have proven no such thing and much work is ongoing to test it.

shadeyinka:
Let's not reopen this

Sorry, but I am afraid we will keep returning to this because it is a fallacy of you disbelieving what you see with your own eyes and making up crap to justify what you want to believe. Just read what you have written in this post of your's that I am responding to to see how many times you've tried pulling the same crap on me!

If you can refuse to see the text in a book that is in front of your eyes and distort what you read with a belief, my confidence in your ability to comprehend the unseeable abstract like we discuss here will be tiny. At least I must bear that inability in mind because it adversely influences your reasoning.

shadeyinka:
Do you think an infinite regression of Cause and Effect is logically possible ( with respect to existence)?

Yes, an infinite regression is possible with respect to existence, but even if not, the universe is very very old and we have not regressed enough to check so we can say we know either way.

shadeyinka:
Just as we have logically and intellectually defined the term INFINITY, why not intellectually and logically define "the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE"!

You can not intellectually and logically define "the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE" Shade. You merely adopted it as a belief! You are very welcome to try though.

shadeyinka:
It would be an impossibility to find the number called infinite however long we search and wait.

Talk about stating the obvious. Lol. No, you can not get to the end of 1, 2, 3, because you can always add another one. In Maths its called an Infinite Series. And yes, it does exist.

shadeyinka:
If we can logically and intellectually wrap our heads around this, the next intelligent proper question should be:

If the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE exist, would (It/He) be a THING or a BEING?

If you can make up crap in your head you mean, like if I can place a billion pounds in your bank account before noon will you be a millionaire?

Sorry but my head refuses the creation of crap in it because there is nothing logical nor intelligent in doing so.

Or as Christ will say, [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A25-34&version=KJV]Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof[/url].

Click on it for the full text please.

pozehnani:
You that keeps distributing your phone number like pure water, what do you want?

If you're truly a "Redpiller* then you shouldn't give out your contacts so cheaply and be coming here to form hard man. It simply shows you're confused and deceiving yourself at the same time. So, stop saying you don't have time for women cause you clearly do otherwise you wont give them your number and nobody will come feeling entitled to your "money".

I hope op is not a redpiller. He agreed men feel entitled too which is very not Redhill who's sole purpose in life seems to be to bed as many women as they can though they lack respect for women nor any for themselves it would seem and tend to fish at the bottom of the barrel and will give their number to any woman who'll take it.

Beliefs such as “all women are evil” and “all women cheat” are what are known as conspiracy stereotypes. Like traditional conspiracy theories, they often rely on cherry-picked evidence. The Red Pill in particular exploits evolutionary psychology to argue that women are wired to want men with a strong “frame”. Much of the subreddit’s misogyny is justified by one of their favourite acronyms, AWALT: “all women are like that”.

Spitting out the Red Pill: Former misogynists reveal how they were radicalised online

LordReed:
This is not from Jon's response. Read Jon's response in the linked page then we can discuss.

EDITED

Here's a link so he does not miss it.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-overcome-existential-nihilism/answer/Jon-Sochaux

haddeylium:
Any Religion can claim to be the true Religion.
Many do, quote me and I'll give you a list of them.

But, the trick many don't know is that you don't just have to people that you're the True religion.
You have to Show them.

Just in case what you have written haddeylium, is misunderstood.

This thread is the creation of a person with no clothing at all, but of an outwardly ferocious wolf who definitely has no love for their neighbours and accumulates enemies! Instead of removing the forest from their own warped mind they are filled with venomous hatred for others. They are worse than false prophets and must be satan worshippers, the sort Christ would know not and who will gnash their teeth! And if they think they worship Christ then I think I should better worship satan so I do not become like them!

True and False Prophets
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Matthew 7:15-20 New International Version (NIV)

13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13 New International Version (NIV)

I pray, Lord God Almighty, that your open their minds to love.

IamPlato:
that's a diplomatic answer...

I don't buy that, many have said that...

What do you believe? How do you personally think man was created or bby who

I am not a believer, Plato. I do not create crap inside my head and claim it is knowledge despite it being utter ignorance. To believe is to claim the little one thinks one knows is all there is to know. Once one believes, one stops learning. You may read Shade and I tackling it here.

I mean, just look at the question you asked. You imply a creator, then you ask who. Who's to say humans were created? How do you know they did not arrive on earth from the planet zoghidecton or somewhere closer like Mars?

I am an evolutionist however. I understand that humans evolved from humanoids that preceeded them as did they and so on to a single cell. But evolution starts after life occured and does not specifically state how life actually began, so the best you'd get from me is, buda does not have a clue how life began billions and billions of years ago.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/13152958_notable02547_jpeg2a552f1e40eee3947fd578e6e174c42e

IamPlato:
Man has free will, he has the right to choose to or not to do.

Agreed.

IamPlato:
From what I see, surviving is a generic term for everything man does, from exploring to reproduction and educating.

And war, and lying, and deceiving, especially when we are being ignorant.

IamPlato:
But surviving is a choice, he can choose not to because he has that ability.

Yes, survival is a choice. One does have the ability to commit suicide and terminate ones survival or continued existence.

IamPlato:
Who created us? God? Science? Evolution? Big Bang? Who?

Now, this one is way above my paygrade since you are asking me a question about what might have happened billions of years ago. Perhaps you will be content with my answer to a different question that is within my paygrade instead, like:

"Who created buda"?

Answer: buda's mummy and daddy.

HellVictorinho:
Survival is the same thing as existence.
If you have been able to survive since 2019,then it means you have been existing since 2019.
You are not the only one that has been alive since then.
There's no reason for the co-existence.

It is you who brought coexistence here, not me, so I do not know why you are arguing with yourself.

Indeed you do not need to coexist. There are people who live on islands all by themself with no one near them to exist with. My simple point is that to exist, as in, to continue in a state of survival, is a purpose that you must do something in order to achieve. If you do nothing, unless others do something on your behalf, you will fail to achieve your purpose of existence.

Even on an island all by yourself, the fish will not jump out of the ocean and into your pot that sits on your fire that ignited itself and into your belly to feed you. You must, I believe, get off your ass or starve.

HellVictorinho:
You shouldn't have called the co-existence a purpose.
The co-existence is an accidental manifestation of consciousness or awareness by several structures simultaneously and it involves the performance of several activities.
But there's no reason why these things happen.
They just happen.

But it is a purpose. You can very well exist as an individual, but those who chose to coexist have consciously chosen coexistence as one of their purposes.

This is very obvious by the mere fact that it, in your words, involves a "consciousness or awareness" (implying it is not accidental!), and the "performance of several activities" which do not "just happen" because you must voluntarily choose to make them happen!

Basically, your supper does not go to the shop to buy the food and cook it for you so it can accidentally manifest as food in your mouth, Hell!

JackBizzle:
See dodging. Simple question, you didn't answer.

If Sochaux believes that Nihilism is pseudo-philosophy, I wonder why Neitzche is more popular than Sochaux among philosophers.

Your question was meaningless! The person you quoted already called it "pseudo-philosophical because the intuitions behind the position are so flawed that hardly any philosopher ever takes the position seriously intellectually". So unless you are asking if one is stupid, I really do not see your point in asking.

As for your "Nietzsche is more popular than Sochaux", would you say one must believe in God because God is more popular than the alternatives too?

HellVictorinho:
Survival has no purpose.

Survival is purpose in its own right.

HellVictorinho:
Why the co-existence?

You are the one who said, "When I say life, I am referring to the co-existence of all living things on Earth", so why ask me "why" when it is you who should explain what you mean by it?

JackBizzle:
From your Sochaux-

Cosmicism states that there is no benevolent God watching over humanity, and that, in the vast scheme of the cosmos, stretching out to infinity, humanity and the individual are less than insignificant; indeed, nearly unnoticeable and invisible.


Do you not agree with the above sentiment?


If your answer is 'yes', then you are a cosmic nihilist.

Sochaux, in the same piece, said:

You escape Nihilism once you realize that it is a pseudo-philosophical position. It is pseudo-philosophical because the intuitions behind the position are so flawed that hardly any philosopher ever takes the position seriously intellectually.

So, why would you even consider asking if it is believed unless you are the sort who believes pseudo-philosophy, which you wouldn't if you but understood?

HellVictorinho:
Don't personalize these things.
When I say life,I am referring to the co-extistence of all living things on Earth.

To co-exist is a purpose, and is one you give to your very personal self.

LordReed:
Yes there is meaning because I give it meaning. I don't need a god or even other humans to tell me the meaning.

Thank you my Lord for telling him.

HellVictorinho:
In other words, I can determine that life is baseless!

Life is an absurdity!

Life makes no sense!

But I just have to survive for no reason!

I beg your pardon Hell, but you and I have determined that our life will not be purposeless and it will have reason.

We have given ourselves the purpose to go and defeat boko haram with lyrics and books one day, so stop being absurd please and let us continue with the current purpose of learning to ensure our books and lyrics will be the best and most effective.

IamPlato:
imagine you were the first man with the first woman and the question "why are you here" drops in your head, what will be your answer?

will you say you are here to survive? bro surviving is not a purpose, a purpose is meant to be significant or remarkable or a land mark.

This already happened, so its easy to answer, but first I think I will need to ask "where am I", and if the answer is "here", I'd have to ask "what is the here that I am at". Then I might ask "how did I get here", and " when did I get here" before I get to your question of "why the heck am I here".

And while I'm answering all those questions, I think I might have to give myself the purpose of "I better be here tomorrow", or I will not be finding any answers at all. Can you see from the above that my purpose can be, survive the day so that I can find out my purpose for being here? I assure you that if I do not fulfil my daily purpose I will never get to the point where I get to ask "why I am here", and my personal experience has shown me that my stomach will impose the fulfilment of its desires on me if I attempt to ignore it, and those who succeed in ignoring their stomach die due to their lack of purpose.

IamPlato:
if surviving is a purpose then the purpose is never achieved because no man survives, every one dies.

Sorry, but the purpose called survival is achieved incrementally day by day, and the day one stops fulfilling it one will surely die!

IamPlato:
take the first man and first woman for example, their purpose is to reproduce and explore and educate the children created from reproduction, that is what you call a purpose.

Yes it is, as inherited from that which they evolved from.

Human beings themselves are a fulfilment of the purpose of living forms that preceeded them, that are purposes of living forms that preceeded them that are purposes of living forms that preceeded them ad infinitum and turtles and turtles, unless your view is that humans did not evolve of course.

IamPlato:
they can choose to stay without doing all these and stay without giving a meaning to their existence.

Impossible! You might succeed for a few days or weeks even, but you'd eventually starve to death unless you at least adopt filling your belly as your purpose or have a sugar daddy who requires nothing from you in return..

IamPlato:
the point is that, we choose to create a purpose for ourselves

Yes we do create a purpose for ourselves, but only after we have accepted the purpose given to us by those who created us.

Let me know you know who those are please so I know you comprende.

shadeyinka:
I think a way of looking at it purely from intellectual point of view is to ask the question:

Can a system which operates in a self fulfilling cycle be purposeless?



Note:
Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

First, a system itself implies purpose since each part of the system must rely on other parts of the system for the system to function. But because I know you are a believer, I am reluctant to admit the existence of a beneficiary or a purposer because you would assume I mean God.

The fact is that there obviously is a system of all the things that had to line up for humans to exist. The food chain is a clear example of a system required for humans to live. If it stopped existing, so likely would life unless it evolves.

The Bible writers were aware of this fact hence Genesis 1, their understanding of the system. It's not literally true, as in, they made up the beneficiary purposer God Almighty, for instance, simply because, like all humans, they concluded from the little they knew and imagined such a being must exist, since, according to them, nothing can just become out of nothing. But who says so? Is "something out of nothing" not exactly what Genesis 1 describes? And if nothing can just become, how can one claim God just became?

You may note their error by the little they wrote about the universe they claim was "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Nothing about the other planets, then suddenly, "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters", with absolutely nothing said about the immense universe we now witness.

The fact of the matter is no one really knows how or why the universe came into existence long before humans arrived to observe and record what they see despite whatever they may believe. And the wise keep on searching instead of (and my bad for this), claiming the Tree of Knowledge is a tree of death and that individuals who died 8 centuries after eating were killed by the fruit of knowledge they ate, which is clearly intellectual dishonesty and humpty dumpty logic.

I guess the short of it is No. I buda can not agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary! If that is true, God must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary who must have a beneficiary. And God's beneficiary must have a beneficiary who must have a beneficiary who must also have a beneficiary. And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum and you'd have turtles all the way down.

My recommendation would therefore be, keep knocking and asking and seeking till you get to the last turtle, as one very wise Messiah has taught us to do.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/13184831_screenshot20210223212525_jpega364b69632fd94e76e9c587d18ba0ef1