₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
Does he do a podcast or something

+
He has defended it at several debates against various theists. Try YouTube.

donleo92:
Iron mike!!!!!

This guy during his reign was a nightmare to boxers....

He hardly talks trash to boxers, but he does his boxing in the ring

+
And his biting of ears.

Xxxxxxx

Ain't that trash?

LordReed:
Yes because you cannot absolutely prove something doesn't exist. A non existent thing doesn't leave evidence to prove its nonexistence.

+
Yeah.

Nonetheless we have had cause to infer the existence of certain things. Black holes for example. Simplistic analogy you may say, but the point is that we do draw from evident effects to infer what cannot itself be seen.

But we can agree that certain impossible things do not exist. Such a square circles.

FxMasterz:
No no no no. The Christian sect was a persecuted sect in the early days. Therefore, most of them were not known because they met mostly in hiding. But within the sect, they know themselves. And what they passed on is what we hold unto today.

+
The thing is also that there were hundreds of such writings, also the councils where these things were decided were a few centuries later and not by the said persecuted Christian sects but by powers and bishops set up under Roman authority after Christianity had become the State Religion of Rome courtesy of Constantine the Great.

FxMasterz:
My brother, we're not the ones to determine what's fake. People lived in the times of authors who wrote any book, and the people who lived at the time of the authors know who wrote what? They're the ones who know what's fake and what's genuine. Ours is to accept what they accepted and reject what they rejected.

There are many books being written in our own days that in centuries time, their authorships would be debated. But if those people accept what we accept today and reject what we reject today on the basis of confirmed authorship, they'll be fine.

+
Problem is that it is well known that the authors of the gospels in the bible are not even known. People wrote and attributed to the apostles. You can check this out, don't take my word for it.

This is meaningless. We all know Trump was not there when the same USA did Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.

FxMasterz:
Are you bragging because of what Mohammed copied from the fake gospel of Thomas?

+
How do you determine what gospels are fake?
Surely you know the Roman Curia selected those in today's bible from hundreds.

FxMasterz:
You mentioned and named electromagnetism because you have had instruments that have perceived that frequency. What about the frequencies your instruments cannot perceive, and have not even been named? I just want you to think in a much broader scope.

+
There will be unknown unknowns that we will never even think of because they rest outside our ability to contemplate in the first place just as an ant will never contemplate computer software or poetry or nuclear physics.

LordReed:
Nobidy says because certain things are unknown therefore a god doesn’t exist. There are several other reasons to say the god does exist.

+
This kind of absolute negative is hard to impossible to prove. But if we are talking about any of those gods as described by religion I hear you and agree.

LordReed:
You the one spewing babyish jibber jabber. Because we can't natural perceive beyond certain electromagnetic frequencies doesn’t mean they are inscrutable to us. We make instruments for that purpose so to act like this some kind of point is balderdash.

The history of investigation has never revealed any god behind any phenomena so no reason to believe this will be different. It has nothing to do with knowing everything.

If your god is operating on an electromagnetic frequency tell us what the frequency is and if you don't know then stop using your ignorance as a cover for your beliefs.

+
Doubtless there will be much even our instruments cannot perceive. Unknown unknowns. Things that we cannot even conceive of and thus cannot create an instrument for at all. Anymore than an ant can conceive of computer software.

FxMasterz:
You got it bro!

Infact, it is still within logical reasoning frameworks to assume that the universe itself may be God. We have only seen a little within the universe. No one has seen the whole universe let alone seeing the outside of it.

We cannot truly know what the universe is until we can observe it from the outside of the universe itself. What if this universe itself is a huge living being that has a different build from us, and the planets, and all heavenly bodies are parts of what keeps it alive?

All descriptions of the universe are based on what we see on its inside from its inside. Imagine the microbes inside your gut describing you on the basis of what they see in your stomach? Atheists just need to think harder and stop being myopic. I hope lordreed and jaephoenix in particular are reading.

If the universe is a “being,” then we would see:

- Stars/galaxies as cells?
- Black holes as… pores?
- Humans as microbes in its gut?

No one can ever tell.

Modified: Just thinking out loud. The essence is for us to know that there are possibilities beyond our natural scope.

+
Brilliant.

This possibility - that the universe may be a living thing we dwell in and are part of just as you described, is something I have always thought of. In fact, one old poster on this platform said a similar thing years ago which I was happy to hear because I had been thinking it. The post was by a brilliant chap called Agentofallah. Can't find it.

A sort of pantheistic view.

DrAda:
I never said that. There were many confounding variables and that includes the truck. Blaming the driver entirely for the accident was wrong.

+
You seemed to at the minimum infer so. Well, i have over flogged it, sorry good doc.

DrAda:
What is the bone of contention here please? You seem to be fixated on the duration the truck spent on the road. You acknowledged that stationary cars should be towed but argued that in developed climes, it may not be done instantly which is logical. However the fact still remains that that a stationary car must be towed.

This is Nigeria. That truck must have been there for several days. Why? Because that is the norm here in this country. We have no provisions to alert the appropriate agencies nor the resources to tow one, thus increasing the propensity of fatal road traffic accidents. Last year, we witnessed the cummulative deaths of 6 persons secondary to two vehicles ramming stationary trucks within a few days.

I am inclined to believe that you do understand me but for some reason you have insisted on pursuing this for reasons best known to you. If you get off on being right all the time and abhor contrary opinions, then I advise we end this tete-a-tete because my opinion is unlikely to change

+
You misunderstand me. My issue is with you saying that no matter what, the presence of the truck is the cause.

FxMasterz:
And as I said earlier, your capacity to perceive is in itself a limit on your investigation. There are frequencies you cannot perceive and therefore cannot investigate. In fact, a dog and an elephant have better chances than you a human.

+
Too true.

See, as it stands, heaven could be within our universe billions or even trillions of light years away. And also, both God and heaven could also be around us in a frequency we can never naturally perceive. I also believe that there are frequencies in which even our solid state here cannot be perceived.

+
Too well said. Very well said. I believe that much that we dispute is actually all around us, simply invisible and imperceptible - to most.

What I know is that Prayer as a spiritual exercise, when practiced consistently can make you perceive things from a different frequency that others cannot perceive.

+
Certain types of meditation I would say. Certain types of openness of spirit and mind, certain types of detachment from the physical. Such as astral travel, out of body experiences for example.

tctrills:
I was impressed. I have always hated the Venezuelan president.
But then, its too early to judge. What Trump did could lead to victory for the Venezuelans, it could also lead to disaster so , no marks for Trump yet.
Lastly, I wish he could take out tinubu that would be the best New year gift zo our failed nation.

+
Alright.

DrAda:
Read my revised comment. That truck has been there for more than a second

+
I have told you severally that even if it was there for only five minutes, the same thing could happen and you would start blaming the truck when there is no where in the world where such can be evacuated in a nanosecond which is what your comments imply. You imply it should NEVER happen that a truck would be parked on the side of a road when it happens in every country all the time and provisions are even made for that.

DrAda:
I knew the truck was parked on the side of the road. My arguement is that no car should be left on the side of roads because of the risks of causing accidents. Let's put this matter to bed please. A little research on this can help expand your view point.

+
All over the word, spaces are made on the sides of roads for broken down vehicles to be parked before they are towed if necessary.

On no planet are cars towed away within one second or instantly.

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.