₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
I am not sure why you are agreeing with him saying atheists say nothing caused the big bang. Also because of the currently inscrutable nature of beyond the earliest moments of the big bang no candidate explanations as of yet can fit properly since we can't even find the language to describe it yet. The matter is not concluded by any stretch of the imagination.

+
I don't agree with him saying that atheists make such a claim. Indeed I specifically said he is misrepresenting you a bit.

You will see that in the post I agreed to, he was not talking about atheists claiming that. He was addressing atheists saying the cause is unknown and concluded that saying a thing is unknown is different from saying it doesn't exist. That's what I agreed with.

LordReed:
I am refering to the theistic mental gymnastics.

+
Oh sure, it's a problem to move from causality to a personality that's for sure.

tctrills:
This man
Am I safe to think that you are out there hating Trump as you always do?
I wish you a great year ahead

+
Just say your opinion of his Venezuela action.

LordReed:
The problem with using causation is like as you can see this mental gymnastic where it is conflated with willful action. Most scientists when using the word would be looking at a chain of natural events not a willful action and the problem with looking back beyond the big bang is they no longer have the language to describe that natural chain. A mental gymnast comes along and says that lack of language means a supernatural entity is behind that lack. Meanwhile I just say unknown.

+
Causality does not imply any willfulness. Causality is causality. An impersonal force can be a cause.

FxMasterz:
l

Let's not complicate the issue about causation for atheists. Their stance is entirely contradictory, and let me spell it out in simple terms.

If I say for example, the big bang happened and was caused by nothing, that literally means the big bang didn't start at any point in time. It is continous workflow from eternity which is very illogical. Atheists on this thread have said they make no such claims.

Niw if I say the big bang's causation was unknown. It gets really interesting because "unknown" is not the same as "nothing", so how does this justify the idea that there's no God. "I don't know what caused the big bang" cannot be rendered as God or the Causer of the big bang does not exist because "I don't know" is not the same thing as "It doesn't exist". Not knowing what caused something is not a logical basis for concluding that the cause doesn't exist.

So, without referring to physics, the atheists positions are logically unsound.

+
Agreed, and what many atheist scientists have tried to use to wriggle out of causality is -

1. Virtual particles in a quantum vacuum - which has been thoroughly debunked as a quantum vacuum is not nothing and has been shown to contain gaseous pressure.

2. The argument that causality breaks down when we are looking back at the early universe - unproven also and even illogical.

jaephoenix:

See abeg,u seriously need a shrink. No cap. I won't mind spearheading a Gofundme to help

+
Kai, I am just seeing that his post oh. . . . His case is an emergency.

FxMasterz:
You're correct but the situation is not just 'likely', it's the absolute truth.

Most of what exists is entirely invisible to us. Humans only see light between 430-790THz and hear sounds between 20Hz-20KHz.

This is a popular science fact meant to highlight the limitations of human senses, emphasizing how much of reality we miss.

Vision (light) :
Human eyes detect only a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum called visible light.

This corresponds to wavelengths roughly 380–750 nanometers (nm), which translates to frequencies of about 400–790 THz (terahertz, or trillion hertz).

- Red light: lower end, around 430 THz.
- Violet light: higher end, around 790 THz.

The numbers (430–790 THz) are a common scientific approximation.

Everything else—infrared (heat), ultraviolet, X-rays, radio waves, microwaves, gamma rays—is invisible to us without tools like cameras, telescopes, or detectors. And these instruments still remain limited in capabilities. Visible light is less than 0.005% of the full electromagnetic spectrum, so most electromagnetic radiation (and much of what it reveals about the universe) is invisible.

Hearing (sound) .:
Humans typically hear sounds with frequencies from 20 Hz (very low bass) to 20,000 Hz (20 kHz, high-pitched).

"20Hz-20KHz," is the standard adult range (though it narrows with age, especially above 15–17 kHz).

Sounds below 20 Hz (infrasound) or above 20 kHz (ultrasound) exist but are inaudible to us—animals like elephants (infrasound) or bats/dogs (ultrasound) can detect them. And you can be rest assured there are other unnamed sound frequencies nothing in the world has ever detected.

The Broader Point
Philosophically/scientifically: our senses evolved for survival, not to perceive "everything." Vast parts of reality—dark matter/energy (95% of the universe), non-visible radiation, inaudible vibrations—are "invisible" or imperceptible. We rely on science and technology to uncover an infinitesimally small percentage of them. Even what we know if the universe today as vast as that knowledge is, is still approximately 0% of the entire universe.

So, how can any same man confidently say "There's no God" as though he has seen, heard and known everything there is. It is absolute foolishness.

I have come to a point of realization that even the so called "Spirit realm" is simply a frequency that exists beyond the bondaries of our natural perception. Nobody sees everything that's around him at any given time. Infact, the unseen is infinitely more than the seen.

An atheist is like a Peck of chickens hatched and grown in a closed and conditioned cage with just a hole somewhere on the cage for passing food and water. It will be foolish for those chickens to arise one day, and say there's no human just because they've never seen or perceived anything beyond the walls of their cage. And when asked how the food from that hole happens, they answer it happens from nothing or unknown (like what I have seen lordreed and jaephoenix claim on this thread). The truth is that the food comes from something unknown indeed to the chickens but claiming there's no entity behind the food is absolute foolishness.

Both claims of the world coming from nothing and/or unknown leading to a conclusion that there's no God just make me chuckle. They don't sound intelligent to me.

Disinfectant123 is asking for evidence that the God exists without seeing that there's no evidence He doesn't.

If atheists have any shame, Cycleoftheworld has dissipated virtually all the arguments atheists hold onto on this thread, but since Atheism itself is some form of 'religion', atheists must defend themselves even with lies, denials and misinformation.

What we know as humans even with our scientific advancements is still nothingness compared to what there is. Wait until you know everything at least, before you say in absolutes that there's no God. And you guys should stop being illogical and contradictory because claiming there's no God is the same as claiming there's no cause. And science has established that effects are always causative. All the effects we see in the universe were therefore caused.Whatever caused them, be it human or things, or places or whatever, whether imaginable or unimaginable is what we call God. A reasonable human would go on a quest for find what it is rather that talk in absolutes about God not existing. Majority of the scientists in the world actually believe in the existence of God. Only a very small percentage are atheists.

We humans don't know anything about the universe yet. We're still exploring. We don't even know anything about our world yet. We have very little knowledge of it because we're limited in sight and in hearing. Wise men would prepare for evehtualities in such situations as ours. Walking arrogantly with blind confidence is foolhardy.

+
Loaded. Lots of sound points. Particularly how little our senses can sense. And our science being tied to what we can sense either directly or indirectly must also be greatly limited.

Nevertheless let me caution that you may have misrepresented LordReed and Japhoenix a bit.

Where I feel you are right again is the idea of causation, sadly many still try to deny it, saying that such breaks down at certain levels of physics - which is not proven at all.

11doubledee:
Aren't you supposed to know that whoever is trying to distrupt an action is the resistance?You can see how you reason mr. man, why it doesn't worth it engaging you any further.
Have a nice day too

+
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Wait first!

So what action was being disrupted?

1. The invasion by American Soldiers or -
2. The defense by Venezuelan soldiers?

Joker!

DrAda - Note even the driver's son says the truck was parked not on the road, but the side of the road.
But you will insist that it was all about the Truck!

11doubledee:
Lol ,run from who,run from what .
Lolz
The argument is not making sense anymore.

+
Joker, you cant even say who was resisting and who was attacking.
Lol. You want to insinuate that the Americans were the ones resisting. You people sha. Have a nice day.

11doubledee:
Leave your hate and bias aside,what is the possibility of a gunfire ensuing without resistance?

+
So who was resisting.
That is the koko. Dont run away.

11doubledee:
Ì
You are beginning to sound funny just to prove a non existing point.
Why do think people lay face flat on the floor with their hands spread in the event of an armed robbery attack? Or you actually think they are so much of coward they can't fight back or Syrian troops wey lay down their arms are not living their lives today
You really funny o.

+
Nope. You are the funny one. Lets be clear, you said that we want people to shoot at American soldiers and do not want them to return fire.

That is what you said, verbatim.

When you know who started the shooting!

You are deliberately framing it as though once the Americans attack, the only response should be to lie down on the floor otherwise the Americans are the ones rightly returning fire. You are deliberately saying that people wanted Venezuelan Forces to shoot first without a response.

Stop being so absurdly disingenuous!

No.
The example of unarmed house holders is wrong. We are talking about attacking a country with an army of its own.
Why should that army not respond? What was it created for if not to defend against invaders?

11doubledee:
Go sleep LiesU87,you were only pained because you were expecting American troops to be killed so you can be rejoicing today.
You want to be shooting at American troops and you don't want them to return fire abi?Na you get sense pass na

Go and tell your Ayatollah Khomeini to go and Donald Trump too,supporters of evil.
There is no place for Islamic terrorism anymore on earth.

+
This is weird when you keep saying that someone wants to shoot at American troops and does not want them to return fire.
Why are you pretending you dont know who shot first? Why are you pretending you dont know who attacked who?
What is wrong with you?

The only ones returning fire were those whose country was attacked.

tctrills:
There comes a time when you realize that the world has moved on and you are only wasting your time. Its a pity you fail to realize that.

+
Long time.

So how are you.

Am I safe to predict you will defend Trump in this matter as well?

Happy new year all the same. Wish you the best this year.

11doubledee:
Don't change the narrative Mr. Man.
If armed robber come abduct and your security begin shoot, na 50/50 .You either kill the American troops or them kill you period,because they will definitely return fire.
My point is ,make sure your security gallant well to fire at them or better use your sense.

+
Well no issue my bro. I was addressing the man who claimed that the Americans were acting justifiably based on self defense.
An attacker cant claim self defense.

If you say na 50/50 and all man must gallant, that one I don hia, and I gree - once the shots begin, all man must wake up and shoot.
But no one can ever say the attacker was acting in self defense. Thats nonsense.

11doubledee:
Okay you want American troops not shoot back so that you can be rejoicing that Venezuela killed American soldiers .
No logic and absolutely no sense, when armed attack you just pray to hit your target otherwise na OYO be your name.
You think say you dey wise.

+
Hang on. Is it that you want the defending side to fold their arms?

You attack a house and say the people in the house are the ones attacking you and you are only defending yourself?

Are you listening to yourself Oga?

OriOko88:
You can't be more brilliant that him sha.

+
Only him? Dem plenty - I can never be as briliiant as -

1. Oyedepo
2. Oyakhilome
3. Suleiman
4. Biodun Fatoyinbo
5. Chris Okotie
6. TB Joshua
7. Chris Okafor
8. David Ibiyeomie
9. Matthew Ashimolowo
10. Oritsejafor
11. Reverend King
12. Olumba Olumba Obu
13. Jesu Oyibo
14. Sat Guru Maharaji
15. Creflo Dollar
16. Joey Osteen
17. Bishop T.D Jakes
18. Kenneth Copeland
19. Benny Hinn
20. Paul Adefarasin

I said dem plenty. Not only him. All these men and more pass me intellectually, I am humble, so I ADMIT it.

Do you also admit that they are all more intelligent than you? Do you have my humility?

SonofElElyonRet:
You can't argue that with soldiers under command dude! Tell that to Trump and let him justify his actions. Soldiers follow command

+
So Oga, na only American soldiers dey follow command?

The soldiers defending from an invasion and kidnap attempt no dey follow command?

So according to you the defending side cannot speak of self defense but the invading and attacking side can speak of self defense because na only dem get C in C?

SonofElElyonRet:
So soldiers following the command of their C in C Trump should've turned back when they came under venezuelan fire? Or they should've not responded thus embracing death ?

+
Wait oh.

You enter person house to kidnap am.

Him fire back at your gunshots.

You fire am, kill am.

And na you dey claim say you dey defend yasef?

Well done oh. Ride on.

So if an armed robber or Kidnapper attacking you in your house is shooting at you, and you shoot back, and he shoots well and he kills you, the armed robber or kidnapper can claim self defense.

Una well done oh.

BarrElChapo:
Wow Enoch, she lifted up her dress for you in your hotel room? I'm only asking because when clothes are lifted for your associates Apostle Suleiman, Chris Okafor, COZA etc etc, a different healing the type that Mavin Gaye sang of comes on them

+
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjlSiASsUIs&list=RDrjlSiASsUIs&start_radio=1

It seems this old man considers his flock re tar ded.
Well, they mostly are.

Willie2015:
U need few boots on ground
Battle hardened foreign mercenaries
Few Nigerian soldiers trained in counter terrorism
Full Air Support
Those guys should report straight to the Presidency
to avoid sabotage
With duly paid allowances..

+
Correct. But not few boots oh. Many boots. Radical flush out is needed. This is an almost house to house hunt.

Willie2015:
. It's a war that can be won. The first thing is to push them back to neighbouring countries....with relentless pursuit..strategy. Make that axis too hot for them..... Executive Outcomes did it during GEJ era... FG need to get serious about their sponsors and even arrested terrorist.. it should be a simple death penalty. Then u put in place policies to address extreme poverty on the North.. The challenge is the lack of political will to do the right thing.

+
Even if it can be won it will never be by missiles alone. Boots on the ground everywhere are needed.

Truthissupreme:
This is not a war that can be won

It's the simple truth, almajiri recruits are more than what army recruits

Guerilla warfare in their terrain suits them than the imported army

Then their is the better motivation on terrorist side from religion, funding, territorial show off, etc

Porous boarders, complicit natives

Even America can't solve this with strikes, Taliban is an example

+
Well said.

Jakumo:
The sudden increase in frequency and brutality of terror attacks in Nigeria is no coincidence. The terrorists HOPE to discourage the USA from assisting Nigeria militarily, but, the effect of this strategy will be the opposite of what is anticipated by the terrorists, because MORE missile strikes are likely, and with greater frequency.

+
As proven in many places over eons it may be difficult to impossible to defeat guerrilla warfare with conventional warfare.

Kingosytex:
This man should give them some breathing space. He has gotten the oil he always gunned for.

+
Nothing will change until the Global South wakes up and pulls out of the UN. A country like India with over a billion people also has no business there without having equal say.

kingthreat:
Japa with them na problem.
Japa leave them na still problem.
Men are reconsidering marriage these days because they stand to lose if it goes south.

+
Marriage is over rated and the peace of a single life is greatly underestimated.

Angelfrost:
Lol... Your fake stats will truly start making sense when Mr. President stops jetting out to France under one silly guise or the other.


Up till now, Doctors are still striking, and over 70% of Nigerian citizens lack access to decent basic healthcare.


See ehn... This is a new year abeg... It's too early for these Obalende stats.

+
The thing is just so laughable! Juju stats everyday!

Arostar2023:
Sadam is dead and not laughing at anyone...if he had any consciousness remaining, which he doesn't, he would be regretting the day he turned a dictator. Most African countries would see it as prayer answered if America decided to annex them . Aside enriching the corrupt politicians, their cronies and the shadowy foreign actors, how has independence benefited most African nations and the black race?

+
Are you one of those who would prefer to be re colonised

jaephoenix:
Krauss's book said A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. This ignorami Cycle now twisted it to say he meant the universe came from nothing

+
I have listened to him defend the point and he actually argues just that, even passionately and to the point of sounding irritable, erratic and unhinged.

jaephoenix:
I have thought of it but then how do you know that? How do you know we won't discover how we came about in say 100 years time? Remember at a point humans didn't know how rain, lightning, floods,tsunamis came about and said it was the gods. Now we know better

+
I don't claim to know for sure. I just said what seems likely to me.