₦airaland Forum

Ask yourself this, what's safer? She had the guts to tarnish your image like that?.. It's your choice anyway, just that once you show a human being you condone something, it becomes a reoccurring theme.. Afterall, you condone it.

The risk is yours.. Start out on a clean slate so you'll find someone who wouldn't dare that or stick with her and keep tailing her, or worried each time she has to go out of your vicinity for long.

I'm not saying she can't change, but people hardly do, you can search "she's still with her ex" on nairaland and see what comes up.

kemicalreaction:
But I played it on a system with 1gb Radeon AMD graphics card. There was no problem with the graphics but I noticed the system was over heating.

Like I said, up to you.. If you're used to playing at 30fps,then you're used to seeing micro stutter and freezes/artifacts onscreen.. Me? The day I started playing at 60fps, anything 30 without appropriate motion blur looked terrible.
2gb is the bare minimum I'd go for... If I'm to buy now though I'll increase it to 4gb VRAM, but that depends on how fast the card is, a 4gb 740m/840/940 to me is a nightmare compared to a 2gb 860m... Better have more performance than vram, because the previous examples can't render everything smoothly on that 4gb vram it has.

kemicalreaction:
It says nvidia geforce 940mx with 2GB dedicated vram.

Unplayable bro... A 750m is stronger than that or close to it.. Don't buy in my opinion unless you want to be playing gta in slow motion in 720p low settings..
I have a 950m and I can assure you that 30fps gta isn't the same as 60fps gta, everything plays like a super crisp action movie when I set my frame rate at 60,whereas a 940mx can't ever get that without signifying loss of image quality or stuttering...
My textures are set to normal, water to normal, everything else is on high and I average 45-60fps 1080p..

An 860m is stronger than my 950m, because the tenth of the number indicates performance, and the hundredth indicates efficiency... So my 950m may be more power efficient over an 850m but 860m is more powerful than it, in fact the 60s are specifically designed for medium level gaming in mind. I had the opportunity to buy 840/940mx and I thank God I didn't, but it's all up to you.

kemicalreaction:
Oh! I'm not a hardcore gamer. I'm buying the system for my freelance business and to play games like gta 5. Hope it will play gta 5?

go for Nvidia 60s from 900 series upwards..
2gb 960m>970m>980m

Gtx 1060>1070>1080.. To play gta V at a buttery smooth 60fps on high.

FYI.. The higher the tenth number, the more powerful the gpu.

Why can't I buy a domain with UBA mastercard?

MrPresident1:
Davien, just give yourself the benefit of doubt, and this next few days remaining for him to come, make peace with him in your heart.

This isn't a love story, it's a story of a religion trying it's earnest to stay relevant in a time we've accumulated the knowledge to waive off its claims.. Rabbits don't chew curd.. We stop diseases without casting any demons and as much as extraordinary sayings like fasting for 40 days and 40 nights go, that's a Jewish figure of speech.. Not actual events..
For crying out loud some of these Christians are the greatest hypocrites imaginable, that beautiful church you love going to... Did you see the hundreds in rags before you entered?

MrPresident1:
I don't use to see you , how are you na?

Jesus is coming o, repent o

He'll be jobless if everyone repented... That's why no matter if you did you're a sinner regardless so people are stuck always apologizing to him for everything... Basically begging for being allowed to live.. Why would anyone want to be anywhere close to such an arrogant being? Humanity has waited for all its gods to arrive and they are forever silent, voices coming from only humans who insist they can communicate with the being but never say anything the communicator himself does not know.

MrPresident1:
This fellow, where have you been? Long time o. Have you heard that Jesus is coming within the next 12 days?

lol... I've been around, let's see if he'll make it this time.. Like Santa Claus. Maybe we should arrange some goat meat and palm wine.. Oops(not a Nigerian God), baked bread and wine..

Would there really be a god who lives in an ancient Greek paradise that wants to both annihilate and rescue humans for an event it couldn't forsee and/or prevent..

Did any of you flip over the little human inspired details in this belief when the god was after beautiful people worshipping it and consuming sacrifices?(old testament)
Better to help a stranded Nigerian than feed an overfed pastor whose job it is to make every verse agree with him.

40 days and 40 nights is a Jewish saying or manner of speech, it means a really long time, not an actual amount of time..

I remember one that at one point was posing as a Chinese/Asian girl wanting to know more about Nigeria, and 1 random dude that kept chatting with her in Chinese(posting in Chinese on the thread), only to be exposed when people found out he was using Google translate and the supposed Chinese girl had the same chat pattern. At the end it was the guy who created the account for who knows what reason.

jesusjnr:
I told the wicked atheists who are yet unwilling to turn from their wicked ways, that they are not the ones that this thread was meant for, yet they are still here seeking attention.

When they can remain here for all I care, but they are never going to get my attention because as I already said we already have enough of them in the church already so we don't need any more!

Or is it by force?

Wicked atheists Why so pained?

Ihedinobi3, if all these hide and seek techniques are necessary to defend your faith then you really need to have a rethink over it.

Ihedinobi3:
But why does this bother you so much? If I greedily believe something foolish to my own ruin in this life, what does that have to do with you?

Good question, ideas are not a self contained bubble, they influence your actions, your behavior and how you react to the society as a whole..

Believers of this ideas like to hold themselves to a standard, that theirs is the correct if not most accurate way of life and that the society as a whole should tailor itself to the teachings, taboos and customs of the belief..

You start seeing things like megaphones that spew opinions in public places, sharing ideas that nobody requested for or vouch for, like life threatening faith healing promotions like prayers or tonics to cure HIV/AIDS, blindness, infertility, etc..

Crusades that make their way into schools, businesses and organizations that aim to influence their behavior in ways that are regressive like against safe sex, varying views, abortions, etc..

And many more, it presents itself as harmless but overtly invades on everyone around it. People continually get exploited in the process.. Politician's use the favored views to win votes and pastors use them to build branch after branch and private schools the congregation can't afford to school in even though had pitched in for its establishment.

Ihedinobi3:
Not cherry picking, just keeping in mind that all interpretations are not necessarily legitimate or truly representative of any given faith or belief or text or philosophy. Why do you think they are?

You haven't answered why you believed your interpretation of eternity to be correct.. Don't sweep it under the rug.

That makes less sense than you seem to me to believe that it does. You have only repeated what you said before. I asked why the above is to be believed. Why does the requirement for faith translate to subjective interpretations? Let me explain: is it a matter of subjective interpretation whether a given chair will hold your weight when you see it for the first time?

Nice analogy..

I couldn't say if I saw a chair for the first time(ever) if it would hold my weight, but by having known what chairs are, their properties and a history of me having sat on chairs, I can make a fair assessment if it would and what to do if it couldn't hold my full weight.

See one needs to have had an objective overview or facts to make educated assessments that are rational, else you'd be making an unsupported opinion that's no better than anyone else's.

If you apply that to something believed without evidence or any merit like faith, to what it's saying to be true, you would merely be pushing ideas you believe or have interpreted without any standing if it were the right one along with everyone else who'd be left doing the same as they would also have nothing to substantiate their claims.

LordReed:
Which is why must exist arbiters and gatekeepers of the knowledge of god, who are the authorities on the true Christian teaching because the so called all wise god doesn't know how to properly communicate a single correct interpretation of its own words to all.

I don't know how people fail to see this basic contradiction.

Lol, how would they? Most people who believe and ignore the contradiction are greedily expecting something in return for believing something outrageous..

If you can believe a man walked on water 2000 years ago and some other outrageous feats, you can greedily await riches, an afterlife to live again and any other thing you believe you'll get.. An investment built on hope and fuel by your time, effort and money.

Ihedinobi3:

I agree that denominations and sects of all kinds base their beliefs on interpretations of religious texts that they favor. In what way however have I carved out a special category for Christianity and how does this category not hold true?

Good@bolded, so why did you exclude jehovahs witnesses based on their view of eternity that I pointed out was against what you posted? Cherry picking?

I'm afraid you have not made your argument any clearer to me. I do not see what relationship faith has to subjective interpretation of texts. Also, please explain how exactly the Bible promotes blind faith.

That's easy, as a faith based text it is read subjectively and without any objective guide to follow, these subjective views evolve into denominations that hold conflicting views. Like yours.

Ihedinobi3:
First, your question was whether a Christian sect did not teach something. My answer was to explain what the Bible actually said and thus help you to see whether what they teach is Christian or not. If you think that that does not answer your question, I'm curious as to why.

Second, what is peculiar about religious texts that "opens [them] up to interpretation"?

I've made it clear why, denominations base their faith on an interpretation of religious texts, in this case the Bible, you were carving a special category for christianity that does not hold true.

For your second question, it's a faith based text, why wouldn't it be open to interpretation when it promotes blind faith?

Ihedinobi3:
There are many tribes, languages and skin colors in Nigeria. There are even natural-born Nigerians and naturalized Nigerians. But there is really only one thing which is called Nigeria and which each of these categories claim to possess in order to be Nigerian. This is true of all things.

In Christianity, there is one core idea that is what Christianity is. Sects, religions and denominations may claim rightly or wrongly to be associated with that core idea but it is that core idea to which one must address oneself if one wants to deal with Christianity, not with sects, religions, denominations etc.

The Bible defines what Christianity is. It is Faith in Jesus Christ, God Who also assumed humanity for Himself in order to die for human beings and thus save us from our sins and the just condemnation awaiting every sinner. This is what you should address yourself to. If any sect misrepresents this, then regardless what claims it may make for its identity, it is not Christian. If it does represent this accurately, it should still proceed to line up with the Bible's position on everything else in order to be a good exemplar for examining Christian claims.


The Bible does not say what you have here quoted the Jehovah's Witnesses as saying. It does not hold that eternity will be in terms of "this world".


But it is true that the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ will return to rule this world for a thousand years. And after that thousand years and another worldwide rebellion against His Government at the end of it, the entire universe will be destroyed and then the Last Judgment will occur at the end of which a new Universe will be created with a perfect Earth where God the Father will come down to in order to live with His Children for eternity.

That Eternity will be spent in a material reality just like this one except only Perfect is true but even the Millennium will be in a world very different than this one because of how this planet will be changed by the Second Advent. Not only will physical conditions be much different than they are now, the very principles that govern human existence now will be replaced with new and perfect ones. It is common knowledge (you find it even boldly written on the walls of the UN), for example, that during the Millennium of the Reign of Christ, there will be no war. Still, that is not eternity. It is still time in this physical earth with sinful human beings and a corrupted universe. In eternity, things will be completely different.

In the Eternal Earth that will be created after the Last Judgment, for example, there will be no oceans. Also, the Capital City of that Earth, the New Jerusalem, will be a perfect Cube and a perfectly beautiful place where all the Church will have their lodgings. But while there will be amazing trees whose fruit will be a great delight and rivers of the water of life, these things will only be delights not necessities. Food and water would no longer be necessary at that point to sustain human existence since we will be immortal at that point. Sex would be hardly important because of the far more amazing pleasures of eternity that would take up our time and thought. When you consider how powerful the Resurrection Body is and how vast the present universe is and therefore how much better the coming one will be, the pleasures of this life that exercise our imagination so much will lose at least some of their appeal.

This is what the Bible teaches irrespective of what any "Christian" sect may believe or teach.

This is you preaching, not answering my question, the only thing I can recognize to be an answer to my question is the bolded and to that you would be wrong to think so, as the Bible being a religious text opens it up to interpretation, whether or not that interpretation is deemed the right one by the denominations with majority on their side..

Ihedinobi3:
Not necessarily. There may be an argument over what "better" objectively means but no other religion or philosophy out there thinks of Eternity as a perfection of what life ought to be. All the others have some notion that either describes Eternity in terms of this world, for example, Islam is concerned with sex and food and water, or presents Eternity as some ethereal existence completely divorced from what we know about life through our experience in this world, for example, becoming or returning to being part of the Brahmin as Hinduism holds.

But Christianity teaches that this world is damaged because of a war that intimately involves human beings. When that war is over, everything will be fixed and for those who have been faithful to God, life will finally be everything it was meant to be from the beginning.

Does Christianity not have sects that believe eternity to be in terms of "this world" like jehovahs witnesses?

For those interested in these interesting topics, here's a primer to understanding them;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-cosmic-microw/

https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

To the lay man out there, read them and compare the contents to what the op has been spouting boldly.

vaxx:
Not true, you were of the opinion, that logic can be wrong in the demonstration of science, in which i quote out your fallacy that isn't true. Infact you were graping at Strawman.

This is pathetic, why not brush up on learning these things before coming online to embarrass yourself.. What straw man did I use when I answered your points?

I hope we can have a meaningful dialogue pls

You already showed me your knowledge by applying heisenbergs' uncertainty principle to the whole universe..
Whereas in reality it is a physics principle that states sub-atomic particles can't be measured exactly.

flawed, this why i initially said, you need a basic understanding of epistemology. Existence is the product of the mind, and they are called abstractions.

1.How can my answer to your question which was what do you mean by existence?" be "flawed" when it is a descriptive question of which I answered "Existence which we should be in agreement on is to inhabit the universe in some way that is detectable and/or knowable."
Do you understand English and comprehension? Or is this another bait and switch to cover your a$s?

2. Apart from what I just said and before I take you on your "existence is the product of the mind" statement take note that you are to provide us with why you think existence is the product of the mind since you're making a positive claim of it..

If you’re a programmer then creating them is part of your job description. There is also a shorter less technical name for them which we are all familiar with. They are words. Words are the names we give abstractions. And if we can narrow in on some specific something and recall it consistently, we can then give that something a name. We give it a word. And from then on, we recall it with one word. Our entire collection of words make up our language.

I can't help myself but to laugh here and rightfully call you a dummy, you aren't making a sliver of sense.. Again clarify.

Words are our interface to all that exists. Some existences are so obvious and common that we award them one word. But for the rest, we articulate existences using sentences and metaphors and stories, which is what I am doing here.

Words have usages, simple.. Unless you provide examples of what you imply I can't go deep into what you're saying here.

All evidence indicates that our universe is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating due to a mysterious energy that we do not fully understand (hence named “dark energy”), that is pushing things further apart.

Didn't you claim the universe is in a steady state? It's good though, we are getting somewhere.

Our latest understanding is that the universe will ultimately become a cold, dark, infinitely vast expanse of space. There will be no other galaxies visible in the night sky because they will have drifted infinitely far apart from each other. The only stars visible will be of your own local galaxy. Thinking of this fate ending up alone in your little galaxy unable to see the beauty of the vast cosmos, the birthing of new stars in distant galaxies, makes one kind of sad.

The things we call precious, cherish and appreciate are those that don't last forever.. Life and the universe are finite, enjoy it..

In terms of birthing a new universe a popular theory often speculated in the scientific community is that black holes could possibly spawn a new universe inside them. Perhaps our universe itself could have birthed inside a super-massive blackhole of another universe? There could be many parallel universes like ours existing inside each black hole of each universe (and more universes inside the black holes of those universes… think “Inception.

lol. What are you saying, this bot science, this some kind of caricature . No i am primary school pupil, seeking for enlightenment. But you suck at it. As far as I know, the expansion of the universe contributes into creating more and more microstates. This is almost equivalent to saying that entropy increases (because S=kBS=kBln(Ω)(Ω)). We cannot be sure that the law of entropy applies to the whole universe (There is debate if the universe is a closed system or not, if its infinite or finite, etc..) but from what we know the disorder of the universe is increasing due to this large number of microstates increasing with time, leading to the disorder of the universe increasing.

@bolded and excluding the off point gibberish, we do know the law of entropy applies throughout, it's called, as I've stated a lot of times here, the cosmic microwave background which gives a descriptive uniform temperature of the universe from its early onset.

Please ensure you understand what you are debating.

Quoting my advice back to me isn't going to impress me.

lol. Another hogwash again... let see who is debating with sense here, let me educate you pls, , the particles having is having an observable wavelength as well (ie) small mass like that of electron can't be traced precisely both velocity-wise and position-wise simultaneously, this is the Uncertainty Principle. The fact to be noted here is that it is not the lack of technology, this imprecision will always be there in future (unless a new principle is developed).

Gibberish, rearrange your words and make it comprehensive.
You can't pinpoint where in an atom an electron resides out of its electron cloud with 100% accuracy, that's the uncertainty principle explained in easy terms for you.. No need rushing to get your textbook.

Now coming back to the answer this is a principle not a law because a law is supposed to be a staement with mathematical proof which can further be manipulated to predict future results without any exception like Newton's Law, Law of Conservation of energy E=mc^2 etc.

But a principle is the explanation of an specific event and may not hold true for other cases. Uncertainty principle is not applicable for macroscopic particles.

You are not that bright are you? Because if you were you wouldn't have just contradicted yourself here...
So since that you've Googled and figured out that the uncertainty principle can't be used for macroscopic particles why did you now initially claim "the uncertainty principle does not allow space to be a vaccum" Applying it to freaking space.. Lol

No, i am writting my common entrance, why i see you hold a phd.but permit sir, you suck.

Then , you are not speaking science; We can’t answer it definitly because we have detected forms of energy which are not realisabel for us. But we can measure them : f. Black Holes, Black Energy or Black Matter. Whatnis even a vacuum? Vacuum simply is a portion of space where there are no particles, i.e. no excitations of a certain field. However, fields are still present, like the electromagnetic (photon) field, the electron field, various quark fields, etc.

All these fields have a ground state and that is a minimum allowed energy… which is what people call “vacuum energy not necessarily empty.

when you have better things to discuss let me know. Go and learn

Have a blast lad, you have nothing intellectual to offer to this thread you created, so far I've seen 0 points made towards the question what created god.

vaxx:
I waited a whie for you to correct the mistake therein science leads to discoveries and invention. Logic leads to invention and efficiency. All these concepts need to be mastered in order to be labeled as a good scientist, as discovery, observation, questioning, and experimenting is the way of science.

l think you need a little understanding of ( epistemology) logic isn't about truth, logic is about validity, Science on the other hand is about truth(that is even subjected to rechecking and updating )But science often uses logic, because, if you start from true premises and make valid arguments you reach true conclusions. But even if you start from true premises, if you make invalid arguments, you can't tell if your conclusions will be true or not. Logic is restrained to philosophical reasoning and not used as proofs themselves. Logic is more fundamental than science. logic symbolically manipulate statements - the most useful logic family that we all use is one that classifies statements as true and false and find out relationships between statements’ truths..

This is a rehash of my statements.. Focus on the topics you raised.

let me push you a little hard into logic. what do you mean by existence? What do you mean by begining?

Existence which we should be in agreement on is to inhabit the universe in some way that is detectable and/or knowable.

But let me demonstrate quantum mechanics to you. I saw a lot of it in this postulation. In space , all the time new Universes are being created and old Universes are collapsing.

You aren't making any sense... When are new universes created in the vacuum of space or collapse? Clarify this statement.

As Energy is neither created nor destroyed, this could be termed as “Steady State” This means, that the mega Universe set up always existed.

If you've passed through tertiary education with even the slightest attention to sciences, you'd be aware that entropy rids the universe of work(useful energy) and it being incorporated into thermodynamics implies that all closed systems gradually lose energy to their surroundings, this is observable throughout the universe, we aren't in a steady state universe that always existed.

Big Bang theory applies to each individual Universe only, and not the entire system.

This statement is nonsense.. The big bang theory applies to our universe because it accounts for its properties..
In fact, the curvature of the universe plotted from the cosmic microwave background of say 4000k implies the universe having a beginning and an end.

In a simili, it is like stars exploding in the sky.

Not really , the uncertainty principle does not allow space to be a vaccum, for example , How is it possible that a black hole appears to emit particles when we know that nothing can escape from within its event horizon? Scratch that....

I can confidently say you know nothing about the subject, the uncertainty principle applies to the ability to measure or pinpoint the exact locations of tiny particles like electrons, it says nothing about the universe..
And black holes emit hawking radiation which is perfectly permissible by all laws of energy..

Not really, According to the uncertainty principle, the more precisely you know a quantum field's value, the less precisely you would know it's rate of change. This means that for any region of space, if you know it is totally empty, then you would know that the value of a field in that location would also be zero. Hence, you won't know the rate of change of the field, which is why the next moment, there would be a non-zero value of the field there and the region of space won't be a vacuum. So space isn't vacuum.

I've addressed all these above. It's laughable that you are arguing against space being a vacuum.. Are you in jss2?

Not talking about complexity here but the source of the universe which has never been vaccum.

I didn't imply a vacuum being the source of the universe, I merely extrapolated that if we consider your question for a universe arising from nothing, we don't have or know anything like nothing in of itself to observe anything arising from it, everything is a something and the closest thing to a nothing is a vacuum which cannot be reduced to anything else... In fact to reduce a vacuum you actually have to add energy.. Whereas vacuums have vacuum energy on their own which obey the laws of the quantum realm.

i do not really understand the question here, but if i can understand , do you mean what are the properties of something that birth the universe or what? Cus i can remmeber postulating this universe come from nothing.

Addressed above.

None of my postulation suggest this ...i don't know where you get this from.


Try to evalute and redefine your work, even if it is copied somewhere.

You don't know anything about what you're defending.

vaxx:
By using the right tools, you can’t use tape to measure weight, atheists and some theists use wrong tools for the job : Science.

Science is the most obviously the wrong tool, Science and scientific method can never prove non-science evidence.

To prove the existence of God you have to use the tools that science is build upon, logic and reason. And using logic and reason or more specifically Argumentation theory, a cogent strong inductive argument can be derived to explain the existence of God.

The most obvious questions in that argument would be


Did Universe always existed?

What existed before Universe came about?

Did Universe came out of nothing?

Can something come out of nothing?

Did Universe came about on its own?



Seek the answers to the question, and find out the answers for yourself.


Read something here too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

Logic isn't all there is to science.. In fact, our ideas we like to infer as logically sound without evidence are more often plain wrong. Like the logic that a melon and an egg falling from the same height, the melon with more mass should fall first if we are to follow the experiment logically but it doesn't.. and a myriad of logically dependent points are proven counter intuitive,like light from a moving object not having an increment in speed and moving at the same speed as one emanating from a stationary one..

Logic is restrained to philosophical reasoning and not used as proofs themselves.

Let's examine those points... We know from observing the universe gradual red shifting of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, distribution of elements like deuterium(an isotope of hydrogen) and lithium, and others, that the universe as we know it had a finite beginning(13.8 billion years ago), so the universe didn't always exist.

And due to the restraints of the finite feature of light, nothing can be inferred before its emergence, so we are left to build models that predict a universe emerging from the lowest level of existence.. A vacuum.

We know that vacuums are governed by quantum fluctuations as everything else in the universe and quantum functions do enable the emergence of complex structures, mostly virtual particles, and in an unknown period, complexity arrives without the presence of any verifiable beings.

So if we are to infer a nothing as your question poses, what would it be and what features would enable a something(which we do know) to emerge from it? Is something coming out of a nothing a viable question without a nothing to examine it's properties... Because in a universe that sums up as a something and everything in it being everything, what room was there ever for a nothing to exist and what would that nothing be?

And if something does exist infinitely as an inherent property, why give it any credence without evidence or even worship it without evidence of sentience, intent or will? Faith?

How can anyone know god exists before asking the question of why god escapes being created if the universe is a creation?

Beliefs aren't facts..

Raptor2cool:
anyone using xpadder should guide me, on how to use gamepad on games like cod modern warfare

I use it for left 4 dead 2,very good... Especially to set mouse sensitivity to my right analog, if you play left for dead you know aiming is everything.. Else you die.
Though I use Xbox 360 config for the rest of my games, it's easier, though some games don't support it(mostly old, optimized or valve games)