₦airaland Forum

Etesam:
Albeit, Martin Luther King was vocal about his agitations.
But with atheists and Nigeria it is difficult to guess that that the former exist, except with a visit to the Religion section of Nairaland.

Which is exactly my point. Atheists don't go taking about God in real life if it doesn't come up. I don't hide my irreligion from my peers but it just doesn't come up as a topic very often.

MrPresident1:
Obama will not hand over to Trump.

And you may keep your apologies in your pockets, this isn't about you, this is bigger than you. The watchman has seen the sword, he has blown the trumpet, and YOU have heard.

You HEARD the trumpet!

*The supreme court was used to validate the gay/homosexual agenda, Obama can deny that he pushed this agenda, the supreme court that declared it is an institution, nobody's name is called. This is a game of plausible denial. Another institution will be used to precipitate/justify the refusal to hand over so nobody is ultimately responsible.

Ok. Fine. It doesn't have to be the say I stated that it had to be. I accept your terms and still think that you'd be wrong.

MrPresident1:
You just wait and see. This one is the real prophecy. You are the one who is most definitely wrong not to believe inspite of the abundance of evidence and clues. You have not watched as the master commanded.

If it happens, I'll come back to this thread to make an apology. If it doesn't, I'll come back to this thread to troll and ridicule.

(The condition being that Obama refuses to hand over to trump.)

LaClicKLaBenDin:
Do you believe in Jesus?

There was probably a radical Jew named Yeshua who lived long ago and led a small cult. But I don't believe he was the son of God, his prophecies clearly failed and his stories were embellished as time went on.

But the person I was addressing believes in him.

shadeyinka:
Some people vomit all kinds of rubbish out of their heart you will wonder how deep their internal filth is!

Think next time before speaking!

Quick to insults, aren't we? Is that what Jesus would do?

KingEbukasBlog:
Hawking stated that the laws of physics could have been involved in the universe's beginning . It wasn't stated with certitude , it was a surmise. But how did these laws start to exist in the first place ? What accounts for the presence of the laws ?

Do these laws need a progenitor? The laws of physics after only descriptive. We can use them to give predictions but only as far as the speculation is well-defined within the predefined law itself. The laws of physics deal with space-time itself. Without space-time precedence can't occur. So how can you say physics needs a predecessor with any form conviction?

KingEbukasBlog:
The fact that people deny the existence of God is because they thought the universe could be eternal and since evidence shows that time and the universe had a beginning , they are wrong and indeed this suggests the universe has a creator, a transcendent one .

Once again, it doesn't. The Universe could have existed in some other form. The fact that it has a beginning is no reason to shoehorn a transcendent being. The very fact that you call it that shows how little logical sense it makes. How can you reliably tell me anything about this so-called entity? Your definition of it completely betrays the assured descriptions you've been giving me.

KingEbukasBlog:
She induces her hallucination , in simple terms , she creates vivid images of herself alone. OBEs involve experiences which include other people , observing events as they happen outside one's body . Its like being in my house and observing what goes on in another person's house without being physically present there .

Every single one of those cases is hearsay. If anyone truly believes he can project his 'spirit' then the person should by all means submit himself to a controlled experiment. A simple guessing game could prove this. It's rather funny that the only person who can do this and is willing to submit herself to testing is can't perform the outrageous claims made by the ones you are talking about. Like I've always said, you don't build bridges using principles that are based on hearsay.

KingEbukasBlog:
That's where religion or other philosophical doctrine come in . What's the purpose of my creation , why was the universe created?

Does it need a reason?

KingEbukasBlog:
In deism , the universe could be seen as an evidence of God's intelligence and creativity - God may have created the universe for the purpose of exhibiting his intelligence .

Isn't that circular reasoning? Assume God exists, then use reality as proof?

KingEbukasBlog:
In Christianity , God created the universe and man for his glory . And that man can have a relationship with God , praising and exalting his name forever and ever .

According to the Christian holy book, bats are birds. I won't base my views on such a book.

KingEbukasBlog:
There other religious doctrines that tend to explain the purpose of the universe . In Nihilism which atheists subscribe to , the universe and life are purposeless and meaningless - they are seen as products of chance .

Yup. You define your own purpose. I don't need ready-made instructions on what to do with myself. I'll give you one more try to come up with proof of your claims

theoneJabulani:
I cannot be believing this.

Christians go to knock on doors to evangelize. They hijack luxurious buses as captive audiences. They share tracts. They blast their loudspeakers so that everyone can hear them. They have tv shows, radio shows, etc.

Now ask them a question about their religion that they can't answer, they'll ask you to shut up because you don't believe.

Why would you proselytize if you can't take criticism?

KingEbukasBlog:
Lmao.

Your evidence to support your argument was weak . Seriously ? A woman who induces her hallucinations gets examined by scientists and the results prove that you have no understanding of OBEs .

I'm very sure you didnt even understand the examination she went through , you just rushed to the site , felt it was a worthy contrary evidence then presented it . Pathetic .

Please take your time to understand my arguments next time Plus you continued repeating yourself because you ran out of anything reasonable to say .

So what do you have to say about certain regions in the brain being stimulated? The same ones that give us spatial awareness?

Stop obfuscating the point with emojis and telling the person to read again and again. Rather, address the issue at hand. Anyway, the thread is there for everybody to see.

KingEbukasBlog:
How about you ensconce yourself on your couch and watch how events will unfold

You'll most definitely be wrong about this.

KingEbukasBlog:
I proved this to be true



Strawman

Here's what I said " Adolf Hitler committed heinous crimes as an atheist

You are the single greatest troll to your own religion.

KingEbukasBlog:
You are the one who claimed that the Creator/God/Supreme Being is a product of man's ignorance and it is incumbent on you to prove it .

Please click on the link I provided and read the arguments between CoolUsername and I . The dude ran away anyway .

I lost interest because I hate repeating myself. I don't try to 'win', I try to show my line of thinking while considering that of the person in arguing with. Once I have my fill, I stop. There's just no point in repitition.

Until you get that into your head, you'll keep making childish students line this one and I won't take you seriously.

KingEbukasBlog:
[size=16pt]Strawman[/size]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent

Examples :
" All atheists are Marxists "
"Charles Darwin is racist "

Wawu I have never said those in my life

Further examples:

"All atheists have murderous tendencies."

"Adolf Hitler committed heinous crimes therefore, he must've been atheist."

cyojunior1:
Wow ! I tink its getting more interesting , can u tell me more about this FSM god of urs ?

First, let us pray.

naijadeyhia:
[/b]


Logical fallacy again. Have you tasted Omniscience, Omnipotence before to know that it is illogical to be applied to creation? Have you worn Gods shoes to know how it fits or why he even chose those shoes?

Are you not glad you exist? If you are not then i am for you because without Him you would ne sitting behind your phone or computer mouthing off. Plus for every cause there is an effect right? Since you are ignorant of how the spiritual works wait till you become a member of Gods board of trustees so you can be privy to some answers.

Dude, until you prove spirituality beyond all reasonable doubt, I won't believe it. Nobody builds bridges or airplanes based on hearsay. Science is our most reliable way of solving problems.

Once you can prove what you're saying beyond all reasonable doubt then it becomes a scientific phenomenon.

The point is that, you neglected to address my questions.

KingEbukasBlog:
Man created in God's image means that man resembles God . Man is a general term used to represent humans - both male and female - in the bible .

To elucidate , humanoid robots can be described as created in the image of man since that resemblance is there .

Does that mean Good has n!pples and testicles?

KingEbukasBlog:
I had to post Stephen Hawkings' lecture on beginning of time expounding the reasons why the universe does have a beginning which confutes your assertion that there's nothing that indicates the Universe needs one to exist . Stephen Hawking said : However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. It simply means that the beginning of the universe and time boldly suggests that the Universe must have needed something transcendent or supernatural orchestrating its existence .He also went ahead to prove that the universe and time itself had a beginning in the big bang

This is why I asked if you even read the link to the end. The article then goes to show why the Universe having a beginning doesn't necessarily point towards a creator.

KingEbukasBlog:
I posted the link which included many evidences proving the presence of consciousness in the absence of matter as the buttress to my claim that God as an incorporeal being does exist as a separate conscious entity. In short , OBEs are enough proof that consciousness does exist without matter. And it does not have to be a near death experience , there are cases of astral projection which involves willfully experiencing self awareness outside one's body. Like Naijadeyhia put across to you , simply , if you have not experienced something you have no logical reason to reject it or claim it is false. So if you have not experienced OBEs , don't reject it with the obvious aim of sustaining your belief in naturalism .

I don't know why you continue to insist that mind trips prove consciousness without matter when the brain itself is the originator of such experiences. http://sploid.gizmodo.com/scientists-unlock-mystery-of-woman-who-sees-herself-out-1538196076

KingEbukasBlog:
I clearly said that God's divinity permeates everything that exists now I'm going further to say that everything that exists is a manifestation of Itself . That's why I posted the link of my thread : "The Logic of God and Everything" . And to every manifestation in whatever realm/dimension there are laws that serve as a guide . God is an omniscient being so whatever difficulty you feel that must have been encountered during the creation of the universe , evidently he is knowledgeable enough to obviate anything undesirable .

What proof do you have for this? Why is there even a need for you to formulate such a being when its properties don't even make any logical sense. Omniscience and omnipotence are meaningless traits no matter how you look at it. Why would an omniscient being even want to create a Universe? It can already see every single event that would ever happen, can't it? Can you -without anthropomorphizing this entity- give a reason as to why it would create a Universe?

naijadeyhia:
Chai now i feel your pain. Are you this close minded not to realise why i had to use a foetus to give my analogy? This is too simple to miss but you have clearly missed it on 3 attempts. Gosh!

Let me ask you a simple question....

Is man not limited? If your answer is yes then consider the foetus.

If a foetus has absolutely no knowledge of a world outside the womb or no knowledge of its mom then consider the Atheist and his there is no God position.

If a foetus does not have the ability to understand its own environment then consider the Atheist vs God (spiritual)

Please if you are going to make a 4th attempt kindly get it right this time or i will not bother breaking it down any further.

You cannot compare the womb (man's immediate environment) to spirituality because it was the inability for man to understand his immediate surroundings that gave birth to religion in the first place. The spiritual realm is the interchange unreachable place (outside the womb). Why are you now extending that to even inside the womb?

Your own analogy sends to change to suit your argument with each post.

Miz007:
it is nt actually if someone doesnt believe in my God den is dat person suppose ti hav ezekiel or moses or samson in iz name or is the person name suppose to be thankin God

Why should he go out of his way to change a name that means nothing to him?

naijadeyhia:
So you clearly do not see your own failure to grasp a simple analogy.

What is the link between the natural and the spiritual? Is it a door you open and close? If a foetus cannot know if there is a world outside the womb without being given a sneek peek or even know if the mother exists without a sneek peek, how then can you say the spiritual does not exist without having a sneep peek of your own? Which was why i talked about personal experiences and giving your life to Christ then receiving His spirit.

in fact you deserve another facepalm

Oh now you want to limit the ability for the foetus to study itself and its surrounding environment? Can you see the problem? You started imposing more limits once your analogy imploded. I gave a simple way for the foetus to know about the outside world just by studying itself. Now you're just trying to hide under memes.

This is the problem you face when you argue with unreasonable people.

KingEbukasBlog:
You have a point , Christians do change their names , the one they once bore as heathens if the name gives glory to a lesser god .

Why should he change his name? That's extremely simple-minded.

KingEbukasBlog:
Wow !!!!

How ? What the ? Oh my

Forget it

Maybe you should focus on making sensible points rather than jerking your friend off.

naijadeyhia:
Kids everywhere!

So the foetus would leave the comfort and confines of the womb and trace its umbilical Cord to the source of external nutrients when it clearly cannot do this due to its limitations (natural vs spiritual)

So the foetus is able to understand all about cells and the composition of its environment when it is yet to evolve to the state required to have access to such a level of knowledge (again natural vs spiritual)

Are you sure you are a critical thinker?

Don't be twit. You're the one who first used the foetus analogy. Do foetuses reason? You're the one who said the foetus can make an assertion. Well, if the foetus was smart enough to make such an assertion then it should be smart enough to practise the scientific method.

Why would you use an analogy if you don't know what an analogy is? Disgusting!

@ KingEbukasBlog.

I wish, sometimes that you would provide actual evidence instead giving links of your friends' posts or those that don't support your point more than they do mine. Did you even read the Hawking's link to the end?

If you're going to make categorical statements then provide proof, at least.

I've been arguing with you and cohorts for days on end but only receive further speculation or thinly-veiled insults when I ask for proof.

This is what is gonna happen. I have a life and I can't keep going on and on about the same thing. If you're not going to provide some sort of source, then don't make such assertions.

**********

You also used the same Game simulation theory that I already addressed when I said that the simulations we create work with the same principles as reality. If God doesn't work with the same principles then how does he creature the stimulation? But obviously, you glazed over that and said you don't take atheists seriously. Really?

I think I'm done here. I've already styled on your arguments.

naijadeyhia:
Look at it this way. If you were a fetus in the womb would you actually believe there is another world outside the womb? Would you even believe your mother who is currently carrying you in her womb exists? You wouldnt because all you have know for 8+ months have been the womb and there is absolutely nothing around you that suggests a world outside the womb exists. True or false?

If a foetus were to study it's environment (the womb) then it would know that the nutrients it receives come from an external source. It would see that its development is facilitated by cell division and conclude that it came from one itself. If it studied it's immediate environment, it would see the womb is also made up of cells too. It would then be reasonable to conclude that the carrier of the womb came from cells too and that there must be some form of cycle to sustain reproduction and an environment to receive nutrients.

Flawed analogy.

naijadeyhia:
Stop playing confused young man. My reasoning is beyond what you are used to which is why you have this struggle. How would you even know a hallucination isnt real is it because someone said so or until you experience it and discover it truely isnt? How many hallucinations have you disproved beyod what you read on the internet or read up in books? Have you carried out a self assessment experimentally?

If i say God speaks to me how can you disprove that without providing your own exeperience under same conditions as mine? If i say God used me to cast out a demon how would you say the demon never existedn when you were not the person it was cast out from and did not experience what they experienced?

In a nutshell my simple response is actual experience in the realm of sanity.

Have you given your life to Christ as your Lord and Savior? If you have, have you received his spirit? Have you tasted of His power and seen that everything became different the moment you yielded to Him? Have you done a before and after comparison?

I believe you know what i am getting at.

You just asserted yourself that there's no way to know the difference.

naijadeyhia:
Did i say i did not know about the laws of other realms? All i did was drop a very simple but intelligent analogy. Besides who says the other realms must operate based on any laws? Must everything subscribe to how humans seem to want it?

I am talking about the realm of spiritual. Do you think the spiritual are subject to natural laws?

Its like saying birds must follow the laws of lions or fish must follow the laws of bacteria.

Be a critical thinker pls. Even in nature laws even when complex are even simpler when broken down and that is where there is a disparity. Can a bacteria reproduce like a dog? Can a goat breath like a plant? Can you reason like a horse?

The laws we know are what we know but not the whole truth as it should be.

How do you know about the realm of the spiritual? How do you distinguish it from hallucination? Can you give a direct answer for once?

naijadeyhia:
If you still cannot see it then sorry.

If you won't point out the flaw, then I won't know, the argument would never be resolved. Maybe we should stop here so that others can read it and draw up their own conclusions

naijadeyhia:
Do you know about all the laws of your realm assuming there are laws especially since the laws were tags by men. What if the only Law that exists is simply called THE LAW OF ORDER and every thing you call chaos which still results in everything somehw working together to keep the earth and universe running is all part of this LAW OF ORDER ?

Man can only see what6 he chooses to see and is limited in sight which is exactly what you are arguing about here.

First of all you do not believe in other realms so why ask another if he knows the laws in other realms as if when presented to you it would make sense?

If you look at nature in its smallest detail you will see how everything is connected and work together even in its chaos they still work together. What we call chaos is simply Orderliness on another scale.

So, if you don't know the laws of other realms, then keep them out of your arguments. It's dishonest to try to take advantage of mutual ignorance.

KingEbukasBlog:
As regards to our realm , things can start off from simplicity to complexity because of laws guiding our universe . The transcendent being's eternal nature and immutability precludes it from starting off His existence as simple .

If God were to change or have a beginning then questions like how did he grow in power , in knowledge , intelligence etc would arise .

Do you now know the laws of other realms?

naijadeyhia:
Its clear you did not read the OP to understand it. I suggest you do so you would stop asking questions already dealt with in the OP. Do that pls.





Thats your quote and not mine. Read it again then go back to the OP and read that.

What exactly is your problem with my argument?

KingEbukasBlog:
^^^
The text in italics answers why God has to be a being

And how is a transcendent being extremely improbable Its an appeal to common sense fallacy to say something is false because you can't imagine the possibility of it being true

Where did you get the notion that the Universe must come from a separate conscious entity? Can consciousness exist without matter? If it can, then provide proof.

Secondly, a transcendent being is as probable as Pikachu being real. First, there's nothing to indicate that the Universe needs one to exist. Second, it raises more questions and solves nothing: (what is its plane of existence like?), (how does it interact with space-time if it exists outside it? At least game sims work on the principle of electrons which affects everybody), (how can it exist without a creator? Does it also have an unfalsifiable creator in yet another dimension?). Third, there is no logical tie-in between this entity and what we know about the Universe.

It just seems to me like a placeholder for where our scientific knowledge ends in order to satisfy our curiosity. It seems like a cop-out and it prevents us from thinking.

naijadeyhia:
A sculpture is a product of complexity. Sculptures are simple but the idea and source of it are complex. I suppose you think an idea is like a light switch and the blend of colours and form is simple. Reproduction itself has a complex source which gives a simple product which is the egg. Everything the foetus needs is already contained in the simplicity of the egg.

Like i said you laid claim that Complexity cannot produce simplicity which was why you ruled out God and called Him Extremely complex so i asked you simply how you arrived at that conclussion that God is extremely complex and like Dawkins you have absolute zero evidence to show for your assertion which clearly shows its a huge fallacy.

What? When did I say that complexity cannot produce simplicity? That is what makes it complexity. Mammalian reproduction is just a more complex form of the reproduction we see in organisms. The problem with your analogies is that you failed to take into account the fact that reproduction is an evolved property. The human brain that is capable of producing artistry is also an evolved property. But if you can give incidence of complex phenomena that can't be broken down into simpler ones, then I'll consider your point.