₦airaland Forum

Chief2410:
lol....help me ask am. I have always known that this life right here is hell and there is no other hell waiting for me out there even before I came across ourtruth247 posts.

Ourtruth247 peddles alot of known conspiracy theories.
This is not to say that here and there he doesnt say some sensible things.

MaxInDHouse:
From that moment Yahweh (the ever happy God) became saddened and He regretted creating man because majority among humans proved to be like Satan (God's rebellious spirit son) Genesis 6:5-6

How is an ominscient and perfect God capable of regret?
Can you not see the contradiction inherent in this?

@ Moremii

Assuming that the Demiurge exists as Yaldaboath, as per your posts. What is the hope of escape from Yaldaboath's physical creation, for human souls.

Do you believe in reincarnation and the cycle of Samsara and do you take a Hindu approach to breaking that cycle and attaining nirvana.

Everyday247:
There's your problem right there, you claim that you understand how evolution works, but you can't use natural selection to explain this?

If you understood natural selection this would be a no brainer for you.

Natural selection does not explain many instinctive behavioural patterns. Can you tell me how it explains the homing bahaviour of salmon for example?

I ask again do you know how natural selection works?
If Yes, please explain how it works.

In one line, organisms with traits or mutations that favour survival get to survive more preponderantly and pass down their genes, while organisms without such traits or mutations tend not to survive.

plaetton:
The laws of nature are immutable.

I agree. How does that take away from what I am saying.

plaetton:
I hold that opinion too.

If our Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and organic life is several million years old, it is not out of place to suppose that a much more advanced civilization once inhabited the earth or at least visited.
A lot of evidence points in that direction.

One hundred percent agree.
As you said, there is in fact evidence of it all over the place.

And the way this world is, this present civilization will doubtless be swept away in some natural apocalypse one day as well. Succeeding civilizations will likely still arise and wonder what on earth the remnants of skyscrapers were and how they were built.

plaetton:
I cited the beauty and symmetric complexity of Snowflakes earlier on this thread.

Do you believe or are inclined to believe that snow flakes are intelligently designed?
Even you believe they are, the answer is they are not .
Snowflakes are formed by random atmospheric flux. No two flakes are ever the same. That should scream ' INTELLIGENT DESIGN '. But it's not.
The fact that no 2 Snowflakes are ever the same tells that there are no 2 identical atmospheric conditions ever. The atmosphere is in a never ending flux. Similarly, the entire universe, on much grander scale, is in an eternal flux of particles, atoms, subatomic particles, innumerable types of cosmic and electromagnetic radiation.

If our localized atmosphere in the northern hemisphere can be producing unique, beautiful, geometrically and symmetrically perfect Snowflakes in a twinkle of an eye under certain atmospheric thresholds , then it should blow our minds what the entirety of the universe can Similarly produce in 14 billion years and counting.

I already told you that the question you should be wondering about is if the physical laws that make such occur are random.

Everyday247:
This sounds like wishful thinking not based on any law of physics.

There are things in reality that transcend physics and are discerned more by advanced philosophy at the level of logic and by astral exposure at the level of the spiritual. But since we are at the level of logic here, let us leave the spiritual and only utilize philosophical arguments.

In this I will be brief, but can expand on it if you wish.

You pointed out the problem of an infinite regress. Absorb the following -

1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. Since something exists, then it came from something prior
3. Nothingness does not exist
4. Therefore somethngness always existed
5. Therefore we can infer the existence of a permanent and self existent something.

What could be that permanent and self-existent something?

We can start with elements of it - such as eternal time (eternity) and infinite space (infinty).

If something is designed in nature, how did you know that It was designed?

Evident fitness for purpose. When a complex system is so intricately set up as to render far too improbable or even impossible the thought that it had no element of mind behind it, and when it then is so set up as to be evidently fit for specific purpose, this strongly suggests design to every rational person.

One thing we need to do is to get rid of the idea that the very notion of design is somehow taboo.

And what are these things that look designed?

Start with your brain.

Also tell me how you think evolution works

By natural selection.

LordReed:
LoLz. Yes they are begin to wake up. The archaeological evidence they themselves are finding is they are an offshoot of Canaanities so there was no Exodus or Canaanite conquest. Dey there make pant dey wear you.

Worse than this, a great many modern Israelis are in fact simply Eastern Europeans.

Kukutente23:
Obidients should stop behaving like fascists . It's called a coalition not a coronation.
You don't go into a coalition with an all or nothing mentality
Coalitions are about compromise and horse trading not gun trotting
Basically, it's a political setup which means democratic principles must come into play.
If Obidients want Obi to emerge as candidate, they should lobby and organise themselves into a voting block of delegates and deliver their votes to him
Saying Obi or nothing already shows that you don't believe in the coalition

E tire me oh.
Also its sad that they cannot see that their attitude is very likely the re-enthrone the frog eyed one.

plaetton:
The enigma of the pyramids is where there is various shades of opinion.
Whilest everyone is entitled to an opinion, opinion based on evidence would always be a superior opinion.
For example, if humans built the pyramids, what can we look for to substantiate that ?
Can we scientifically pinpoint when exactly they were built? Were there available tools, workforce, food, mathematical and engineering know-how at such a period ?

If superior technological knowledge built the pyramids, then what clues should we be looking for ? Do we find such clues ?

These are the basis upon which one can put out a rational opinion on that enigma.

Its possibly done by a civilization that was obliterated before this current civilization arose.

Everyday247:
It's not about what's true or false. It's about opinions.

Eg. Take the question: did aliens build the pyramids?
Some believe so while other do not.

We can also say that some subscribe to the idea while others do not.

He is playing around with the word "subscribe." Think nothing of it and waste not time upon frivolity.

plaetton:
I agree to some extent.

But Intelligent Design is not a scientific alternative to TOE. It is not based on any testable science.
Is is just wishful thinking by people who cannot accept the absence of a Creator or designer in the scientific Theory Of Evolution.

There are many things in nature which disclose clear design save to the willfully blind.

Everyday247:
All these can be explained by evolution

Dont just say it. Explain how. Teach me. I am ready to learn.

Everyday247:
DeepSight

I did not even read the thread from the beginning so I missed most of the what happened.

Let me confirm something, are you saying the following?

1. Instincts in animals can't be explained by evolution.

2. Sexual reproduction is too complex to arise through evolution.

Are these your points?

To be clear I believe in evolution. However it has its limitations and not everything in nature can be explained by it. I firmly believe - nay, I know, that sexual reproduction cannot be explained by evolution.

Many instincts can be explained not just by evolution but even just by stimuli and reaction to stimuli. However there are many instinctive behavioural partterns which are either difficult or impossible to explain with evolution.

Everyday247:
Intelligent design actually raises the question, who designed the designers?

And this leads to an infinite regress.

A valid question and while I cannot account for it, it stands to reason to me that there exists an ultimate source of all things, and that is what I personally call God. It is not the Abrahamic version of God, it is not a person as understood in the anthropomorphic sense either. It is a transcendantal and ineffable element.

It's also a god of gaps argument, if we can explain something therefore we invoke intelligent designers.

There are actually things in nature the complexity and specificity of which actually logically presuppose design. Its not a question of a God of the gaps argument - rather the question should rebound to those who claim that certain evidently designed things were not designed. There is an age old analogy about this, but I dont want to cite it. It has to do with a watch or a clock. Suffice to say that if you investigate the workings of a single cell within your body, not to speak of the staggering workings of the human brain - which far exceed the workings of the most complex computers, you will find that it is rational to presuposse that there is evidence of design in these things. You will find that it is that person who claims that there is no element of design who really has questions to answer.

It's a logical leap, how did you leap from not understanding evolution to intelligent designers.

Questioning evident gaps in the Theory of Evolution does not mean one does not understand it.
Observing evidence of design in nature also does not mean that one does not understand evolution.

I actualy believe in evolution but I dont believe it's all that accounts for life as we know it. In my view, it works side by side with many obvious elements of programming and design.

plaetton:
And my dear good friend, as I have stated in the past, NOTHING in nature screams ' INTELLIGENT DESIGN ' like snowflakes ❄️.
We can start ascribing that beautiful, perfect symmetrical design to good ol Santa 🎅.

We all know that snow flakes , the beauty, the geometry and perfect symmetry are simply created by random atmospheric flux .

But just how random is it.

The same thing can be said of patterns created by magnetism.

So one may say, hey, we know those patterns are created by magnetism.

But just how random are the physical laws that result in such?

plaetton:
TOE has not been refuted after 150yrs of rigorous scientific enquiry.
Even if 60% of the central idea has been validated so far, it only means that we are yet to understand the remaining 40%, not that it is half-truth.

Wait,

Correction!

Scientific Theories, by definition, are half-truths.
That's why the questions and enquiries continue

You are all over the place.
Come down from your horse, I said come down now.

plaetton:
He sure did, but with scientifically sound new ideas of his own.

Question science with science.
Refute science with better science.

As I said science can be questioned with logic and indeed science is based on logic.

It is with logical questions that science gets replaced eventually with better science.

Everyday247:
Check his posts, it was as if he was implying that some biological phenomena couldn't be explained by TOE, and was hinting at intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is not the stupid retarded idea that many atheists or scientists try to make it out as. There is much in nature that strongly suggests design. I don't like the attitude of many that Intelligent Design is somehow the preserve of idiots or illiterates and is somehow taboo.

Personally, I believe in both evolution and some level of design and programming inherent in the world around us, I don't however believe that that design or programming is all encompassing or perfect or even necessarily made for good. Much of it in my sight is downright flawed, morbid, sadistic and barbaric.

I also don't believe that GOD, which I see as the source of all existence, directly created this world and I think it is far more likely that it is the work of vastly lesser beings. I also believe that our existence could be many possible things including a scientific experiment or even a source of cosmic entertainment.

plaetton:
I am not an expert on the subject, and I don't have to be.
There are volumes of published materials on the subject.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3312679/

Where would I even start from ?

If he hasn't exhausted all the available materials on protein synthesis and evolution, why does he think I or anyone else owes him that knowledge here on Nairaland?

Then for Pete's sake drop the pretentious arrogance.

plaetton:
I also asked you if you ' subscribe ' to the Atomic theory or the Germ Theory or the Gravitational Theory.
Funny that no one tries to cast doubts on the Gravitational Theory, even though that particular theory is incomplete as well, with gapping holes.

Who says it is not questioned.
Did Einstein not propound a newer version than Newton's?

plaetton:
Let me give an example.
There is so much we are still trying to understand about our Sun. But from what we know so far, all the planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun ,albeit, with different orbital periods. We also know that our Sun is the source, regulator and sustainer of life in our planet.
Now, if I make the proposition that the Sun is our Heavenly Father and therefore our God( having all the attributes of god).
You may say that you do not subscribe to that characterization of the Sun as our Heavenly father God. You would say for either if 2 reasons: 1. Either the characterization of the Sun as our heavenly father and God offends your religious sensibilities, or 2. You have not been acquainted with the mechanisms through which the Sun control all planets as well sustaining life on Earth.

The point here being that you can subscribe or subscribe to a philosophical proposition. But you are not at liberty to subscribe or unsubscribe to a scientific theory , unless, you can duly refute that theory or come up with a scientifically superior theory.
You refute science with better science, not with feelings .

Science can be questioned with logic.

plaetton:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

How many people do not subscribe to the Gravitational Theory ?
Best way to register that one does not subscribe to the theory of Gravitation would be to test it and jump from a multi-storey building.

This lazily suggests that the TOE is as complete and proven as is Gravity.

And that is false.
Unequivocally.

plaetton:
Let me say this for better understanding.

For my friend DeepSight to question or proclaim the inexplicable instincts, he first has obligation to take a deep dive into the subject of protein synthesis, understand it, and then be able to say that the body of accumulated knowledge in protein synthesis and its fundamental link to natural selection and evolution is wrong and incomplete.
You question science with science.

And yet not once has there been evidence that you yourself have done this.

I have repeatedly cited even evolutionary biologists when I raise my questions.

Yet you revert with the same old tired tropes.

Sonnobax15:

That's the power of nyash......

Unfortunately,I won't be surprised if their fellow men calls them for help, and they'd swear with their lives they haven't even seen a dime let alone touch it

Indeed,every single factor of mother earth is working against "MAN" from the very first day he's born

Nah, not every single.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Moremii:
Indeed, your conscience serves you well to abandon the worship of such a draconian and malevolent being. I believe true gnosis begins when you start to see all these potholes in mainstream "Christianity".

The only thing I might assert here though is that it is more likely that the Demiurge operates through these patriarchal human minds to warp the reality of our universe, and not the other way round. Afterall, I do believe that beings exist that transcend our known universe and govern all the forces in it.

Surprisingly I think the theory of Yahweh being an extraterrestrial being technically still aligns with gnostic cosmology because the Apocryphon of John describes the Demiurge as the creator of humans in the material through genetic manipulation, and he was assisted by his archons.


So I guess one could interpret this as aliens, but it's still non-human intelligence shaping our world for whatever purposes or non-purposes, haha.

Very well said again, nothing to dispute. You have indeed made my day, even if that be to the chagrin of tctrills.
PS: The bold is eminently possible.

triplechoice:
The theory has its limitations.

I dont know why it is so hard for them to admit.

And if the op is drawing attention to it, It's better you acknowledge that, and respond appropriately and not arrogantly dismissing him with God of the gaps accusation . I'm not a religious person myself but I find his question very valid. Any science that cannot be questioned is dogma, and anyone can question science.

Very well said.

plaetton:
Failing to understand something, a scientific theory, does not weaken the veracity of the theory itself.

Here you are implying that if one understands the Theory of Evolution properly, then it has no gaps.
This is very wrong - the theory is limited and has profound gaps - which even evolutionary biologists acknowledge.

Moremii:
You're not getting my point. Are you not seeing the ontological contradictions? There's no point being reductive and summarizing what I'm saying if you're not even going to get the point.

My God transcends creation.

Your god actively involves himself in it and obsessively controls it through violence and law, while being prejudiced and hypocritical.

If you want to insist that they're still the same "God", then you're indirectly saying that God's nature can change which will go against the doctrine of divine immutability (God is eternal). I'm sure you know this.

This is so simple and so clear it is tiresome that it can be disputed.

That the god of the Old Testament is really a blood thirsty pagan Jewish mountain deity is no news. And no one with a conscience could find it within themselves to worship such a barbaric entity.

By contrast the teachings of Christ are illumined with higher and noble principles far beyond the highest reach of the monster of the Old Testament. I personally do not even believe that that monster existed at all, but was the creation of the patriarchal human minds who wrote it into existence with their desperation for dominion, conquest and control.

I am nonetheless aware of several interesting schools of thought, some of which for example suggest that Yahweh was actually an extra terrestrial being of a sort, which, along with other aliens, participated in the early set up of mankind on Earth for very different reasons than advanced in the Bible.

The school of thought you advance, which tallies with that of Yahweh being the Demiurge, is also very interesting and something I don't discountenance.

AlbertNewton:
At the bolded, I think the way an organism responds to specific stimulus will be a consequence of some evolutionary processes, especially if that response is more or less automatic.

Of course, it makes sense that evolution would have equipped an organism with appropriate biological endowment and capabilities to respond efficiently to a stimulus, especially when its survival crucially depends on the response to the stimulus

It seems we actually reason alike. While I know science can explain to a large extent how many natural phenomena work or operate, the deeper question of why such phenomena exist at all is often hard to answer. I also do not believe in the god of the bible (and by extension other popular gods) simply because of the stupid and evil things the biblical god did, which I cannot imagine the same being that created this universe to have done. I essentially see the stories in the bible as fables made up by some people for whatever reason.
But while I don't believe in biblical god, I do think there's something really complex and unfathomable behind the existence of the universe. When I think about how vast the tiny part of the universe that is observable to us is, it's hard for me to attribute it all to some mindless big bang and evolution. While big bang and evolution may explain the how to some extent, they do not satisfactorily tell us the why. Why does anything exists at all ?
Realising that the sun is about a million times bigger than earth, that there are hundreds of billions of such sun (stars) in a single galaxy (with each sun potentially having its own solar system with possibility of having planets with life around it, perhaps life as complex or possibly more complex than life on earth), and that there are trillions of such galaxies in a tiny portion of the universe is extremely mind-blowing. And if there are trillions of galaxies (this is established scientifically), who is to say there aren't quadrillions of universes ?
So I agree with you that beyond our simplistic big bang theory and evolution, there could be something much bigger going on that we may never get to understand fully!

Beautiful and delightfully written. You took the red right out of my school of thought. It's exactly how I think, and it's heartwarming to read this from another.

@ LordReed, find this interesting? Re: other universes? Sound familiar?

@ AlbertNewton. I see what you did with your moniker. Einstein and Isaac.

tctrills:
Ok uncle. I am on my knees sir.
Nairaland says I need 18 more characters

Better.

Now compose your response and rebuttal in that position.

tctrills:
Lol
Now you want us to begin 'I am older than you debate. '
You are such a child. But I kind of like your innocent foolishness.

Its not an age thing. Its just the fact that I can guess your age that shows how child-like you are.

Kneel down and raise up your hands immediately.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx