₦airaland Forum

DIVINEEVIDENCE:
[b]After Christ's death and resurrection, people will be judged based on their acceptance and confession of the faith and Lordship of Christ.

What of those who never heard of him?

tctrills:
No, that was meant for your brother. He is carried away by every wind that discredits Christ. The boy has zero opinion as long as it's against Christ. And yes expect to hear more.

Who are you calling boy. You had better get on your knees and learn some respect. I am almost certainly at least a decade older and wiser than you.

Goosethetruth:
I personally find that most Christians don't know much about their Bible and it's origins and are not even interested in knowing any thing about the Bible, in fact I would go further to state that Christians are scared to research into the history of the Bible because the mind control is very deep
Closely following this thread.

This is so very very true.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

tctrills:
Lol
But then you can't be intimidated by AI. Humans created AI. You have nothing to fear.
Just provide answer.
I have not even replied and you are already sweating. Lol

Not intimidated in the least. I require originality from co-discussants. I do not come here to engage with robots.
Particularly in matters like this, humans are still ahead of AI on account of the nuance involved.

Anyone can resort to AI and I have told you already that it is lazy.

chimex38:
its not double standard.
It's fair game.
The law is in them already to obey.
Continuing to Vs13 provides clarity.
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous"

If this is the case what is the relevance of believing in Jesus Christ.

Moremii:
Hmmm. It's alright. I expected responses like this.

For your information, I'm not discrediting Christ. Where did I discredit Christ from my OP to my second post? Christ is undeniable, but I'm saying he's not the domesticated version you guys worship as the blood sacrifice of a false god. Yaldaboath is your god, not mine. Christ goes against everything your Demiurge espouses, particularly in the Old Testament.

Maybe you should ask yourself the following questions, if you're truthful to yourself:

1. Why does a loving god command genocide in the Hebrew Bible?
2. Why must salvation require blood sacrifice if your god truly forgives sins?
3. Why do we need to engage with priestly mediators when we were told that we're made in God's image?
4. Why is seeking knowledge forbidden in parts of the Hebrew Bible and even treated as spiritual pride? Is ignorance a virtue to you?

In your version of Christianity you champion blind faith, even with all the vagueness and contradictions compiled by Constantine. You humiliate Christ by making him a subordinate to a tribal god who only cares about the Israelites, and I'm the one who's undermining abi discrediting Christ? LOL.

Too well said. Perfect.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

LordReed:
Good answer. DeepSight I couldn't have said it better. I am confused why you think these instincts are inexplicable.

Please see my further interaction with him above.

DeepSight:
I believe there are logical answers, even scientific ones. However I find the set of answers most present me with unsatisfactory.

Note that I said this -



The word "inexplicable" which I used. By that I simply meant pretty hard to explain and in some instances perhaps almost impossible, with current scientific knowledge.

I would be interested in your take, thanks.
Good morning.

AlbertNewton:
Good morning to you too.

The scientific and logical explanation for the instincts you consider as inexplicable will certainly require some expertise in evolutionary biology and genetics. I'm not an expert in any biology related field, but I do know some science, and more importantly I'm a rational thinker, so I may still have a few things to contribute.

I think there are four important factors about evolution which when understood can help get a general idea of how the phenomenon operate (without getting into specific details): variation, inheritance, selection and time.
Variation tells us that individual organism within a population can exhibit different physical and physiological traits in reaction to the environment. Inheritance is about organisms being able to pass certain heritable traits to their offsprings. Selection tells us that individuals with certain heritable traits which are advantageous to their survival are likely to be the ones who survive and therefore pass such advantageous traits to their offspring in the process, so that eventually the advantageous traits become dominant among the organism population, with the less advantageous traits dying out gradually. Finally the time factor make us know that over generations (which could be thousands or millions of years) the accumulation of small advantageous traits leads to marked changes in the overall characteristics of the organism population, so that a different species of organism is essentially produced after a sufficiently long period.
While there are many details to consider and certainly many questions to ask, but if you put these four factors/principles together, they provide a logical framework and explanation for the diversity (and similarity) of organisms we see today.

Having provided a simple summary of the principle of evolution, let's now proceed to address your "inexplicable" instincts.
It seems to me that perhaps the most important thing you need to understand is how instinct work generally. I stand to be corrected, but I think most instincts work through some sort of biological stimulus that push us to attain a certain physical or biological state. Take hunger or sex for instance, these instincts basically use our biological processes to create stimulus that we then have to respond to. We usually do not feel comfortable until we have responded to the stimulus.

Can you already see how there could be some internal biological disturbance (stimulus) that forces a new born tortoise to seek a particular environment in order for the stimulus to be satisfied? Or how a puppy is stimulated to seek something to suck on so as to feel relieved?

DeepSight:
Thank you. You have actually touched on what I believe to be the "suitable explanation" which I referred to earlier. But it has little to do with evolution and something to do with the stimulus you mentioned. That's what I was waiting for people to put their finger on, but most kept huffing and puffing about natural selection.

Having said that, there still remain mysteries in this instinctive behaviour. True, a pup may feel a pang of hunger and seek to satisfy it. That is stimulus. What no one mentioned so far is that it has a nose and may smell that breast and it's contents. So it has come equipped to detect the possible source from which it may assuage that stimulus. A similar explanation may suffice for the turtle.

However the reason I cited multiple examples is because when taken together it still seems that something else is at work. Let us look at the instinctive climb of the marsupial to its mother's pouch for example. It is just born. It knows nothing. And yet it begins to head for a pouch which it could not logically know of. Yet it heads for it and ensconces itself there. This behaviour is very hard to explain.

Even harder to explain is the behaviour of Salmon, which I articulated in the first page of this thread.

I am not here to say "God did it" because while I believe in the existence of God (quite different from the usual or Abrahamic definition though) I don't believe that God directly created this world. What I do however detect is the influence of some programming in all of these things, a definite pattern which is beyond the randomness that some suggest and which also beats the explanations suggested by the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection all too often.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where people have to remember it is he who alleges is the one with the duty of proving.

The bible clearly states that at least 12 principal people were with Him at all times in addition to public sightings.

Then, the most material evidence is the fact that when this report first came up no one at the material time came up to oppose and say that it is not true. So no one today who was not there at the material time can validly stand up to deny this fact.

And that is because there are many thing which lock and secure all Truths. And one of them is called estoppel.

So all those trying to attack this settled fact are already looking stu... as they can never discharge the burden of proof. It's all noise making generated to make shallow people fall

Please don't try to use the legal doctrine of estoppel carelessly and wrongly.

LordReed:
Some how it seems you prefer to fight over inanities than actually progressing a conversation. I already said I was not giving Harry Potter as an example of a book written 2000 years ago. I mean why are things like this hard for you to grasp? The point was writing around a theme is not special.

Nor is the age special. We have been doing this stretching back since the dawn of writing.

But since you are asking for a book from 2000 years ago then let's look at the Hindu scriptures. The oldest was written at about 1800BCE which makes it even older than any book of the Bible and is still in use today (almost 4000 years later) by more than 1 billion Hindu so I dunno why you think the age of the Bible or the number of authors are special.

GBAM!

Chief2410:
All I can say for now is we are not meant to be here. We don't belong here. Who ever brought us here doesn't have our interest at heart. Avoid herd mentality and think freely. Whoever brings fear to you does not want the best for you instead wants to control you. Free your self from every form of control. Look where no one is looking.

This suggests that you believe there is a being (or there are beings) who have malevolently orchestrated the world and reality we live in.

Do you believe this to be done by God and do you believe in God at all.

chimex38:
Romans 2:12.
They will perish apart from the law.
(I think it means they will be judged according to their deeds not believe)

Why should a perfect and impartial God have double standards.

StoryHaven:
In my own understanding, we that are saved by grace through Jesus will be judged according to the acceptance of Christ because we can not be saved by works. But they that were not existing during Christ's dispensation would be judged by works. (Though they had no grace, yet they were good to people, they lived with the consciousness of not wanting to do evil)

Is this not a double standard.

DIVINEEVIDENCE:
It was not a strict requirement before his death and resurrection.

After his resurrection, it became a strict requirement.

John 20:31
But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name.


Acts 8:36, 37

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what hinders me from being baptized?

And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

1 John 3:23
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.


Romans 10:8-10

But what says it? The word is near you, even in your mouth, and in your heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if you shalt confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.

For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Is God not the same yesterday, today and forever? Why then would he change the goal post?

Be specific: what happens to all the many people who lived -

1. Before Christ and never heard of him thus

2. After Christ but never heard of him.

tctrills:
Lol
You only accepted a position that discredits Christ.
You don't even know if anything she said is true.
A lot she said is false but then you don't care. It's the kind of things you love hearing.
Can we do something here, I will write a rebuttal to her and I want you to defend her position with history and facts. Do you accept the challenge?
Let's see if you really have any position.

Alright go ahead.

To be clear, I have not said that I agree with every word she wrote, but go ahead because I agree with most of it. Almost all.

PS: Don't go and use ChatGPT for us oh.
Feel free to consult it, but deploy your own reasoning.

AlbertNewton:
Good morning to you too.

The scientific and logical explanation for the instincts you consider as inexplicable will certainly require some expertise in evolutionary biology and genetics. I'm not an expert in any biology related field, but I do know some science, and more importantly I'm a rational thinker, so I may still have a few things to contribute.

I think there are four important factors about evolution which when understood can help get a general idea of how the phenomenon operate (without getting into specific details): variation, inheritance, selection and time.
Variation tells us that individual organism within a population can exhibit different physical and physiological traits in reaction to the environment. Inheritance is about organisms being able to pass certain heritable traits to their offsprings. Selection tells us that individuals with certain heritable traits which are advantageous to their survival are likely to be the ones who survive and therefore pass such advantageous traits to their offspring in the process, so that eventually the advantageous traits become dominant among the organism population, with the less advantageous traits dying out gradually. Finally the factor make us know that over generations (which could be thousands or millions of years) the accumulation of small advantageous traits leads to marked changes in the overall population, so that a different species of organism is essentially produced.
While there are many details to consider and certainly many questions to ask, but if you put these four factors together, they provide a logical explanation for the diversity (and similarity) of organisms we see today.

Having provided a simple summary of the principle of evolution, let's now proceed to address your "inexplicable" instincts.
It seems to me that perhaps the most important thing you need to understand is how instinct work generally. I stand to be corrected, but I think most instincts work through some sort of biological stimulus that push us to attain a certain physical or biological state. Take hunger or sex for instance, these instincts basically use our biological processes to create stimulus that we then have to respond to. We usually do not feel comfortable until we have responded to the stimulus.

Can you already see how there could be some internal biological disturbance (stimulus) that forces a new born tortoise to seek a particular environment in order for the stimulus to be satisfied? Or how a puppy is stimulated to seek something to suck on so as to feel relieved?

Thank you. You have actually touched on what I believe to be the "suitable explanation" which I referred to earlier. But it has little to do with evolution and something to do with the stimulus you mentioned. That's what I was waiting for people to put their finger on, but most kept huffing and puffing about natural selection.

Having said that, there still remain mysteries in this instinctive behaviour. True, a pup may feel a pang of hunger and seek to satisfy it. That is stimulus. What no one mentioned so far is that it has a nose and may smell that breast and it's contents. So it has come equipped to detect the possible source from which it may assuage that stimulus. A similar explanation may suffice for the turtle.

However the reason I cited multiple examples is because when taken together it still seems that something else is at work. Let us look at the instinctive climb of the marsupial to its mother's pouch for example. It is just born. It knows nothing. And yet it begins to head for a pouch which it could not logically know of. Yet it heads for it and ensconces itself there. This behaviour is very hard to explain.

Even harder to explain is the behaviour of Salmon, which I articulated in the first page of this thread.

I am not here to say "God did it" because while I believe in the existence of God (quite different from the usual or Abrahamic definition though) I don't believe that God directly created this world. What I do however detect is the influence of some programming in all of these things, a definite pattern which is beyond the randomness that some suggest and which also beats the explanations suggested by the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection all too often.

DIVINEEVIDENCE:
It is not bunkum.

Before the advent of Christ, civilisations had rules and taboos and regulations.
They will be judged according to how uprightly they lived in respect to their conscience and societal perceptions of Right and Wrong.

Romans 2:14-16
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

After Christ's death and resurrection, people will be judged based on their acceptance and confession of the faith and Lordship of Christ.

Acts 4:11, 13
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 17:29, 30
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:


John 3:17, 18
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

What is the summary.
Do we not conclude that knowing Jesus of Nazareth cannot be a strict requirement for "salvation."

Don't you think it's better to say that living according to the spiritual precepts he taught - regardless of whether one ever heard of the man - is what is key.

tctrills:
Lol
You have this affinity for strange, unproven and quite foolish opinions. Anything that discredits Christ, they will find you there.
Now can you highlight the teachings of Jesus Christ that are reflected in this religion you guys are talking about ?
Please compare the teachings of your Yaldabaoth to that of Jesus Christ let's see how far you go.

What religion? And who is discrediting Christ?

I simply referred you here for the masterclass on the history of the Bible which is one of the areas you are very deficient on.

Accept help when it is offered.

Chief2410:
The reason I used the word is it saves me the stress of saying "endless cycle of birth,death and rebirth". I don't follow any of those sects. I think freely. Each of those groups you mentioned is part of the controlled system in place to keep us conditioned. At some point in my journey,I have come across different religions and sects and even believed their doctrines.Now,I walk a different path.

Refreshing.

Can you summarize your philosophy of life. Why we are here. What brought about this world. What is its purpose. Etc.

Moremii:
Thank you Sir. Of course, the Demiurge is incident the false god that Christians worship today.

The Apocryphon of John reveals to us how he trapped the divine spark of humanity into this wanton flesh that craves constant but can never be satisfied. That's why we are consumed by greed, selfishness, and vanity.

Everything I've said here is not new to people who've delved deep into the history of the Bible. It disappoints me that so-called Christians, with all their pretense to search for God and study him deeply, haven't cared to research all these readily available facts and information.

Sad to say, I find that 99 percent of Christians do not read either the bible or bother about its history or any history for that matter.

Everyday247:
I think you are blurring the line between "we currently do not have enough understanding of something" and "It's impossible for something to occur under certain conditions".

Take consciousness as an example, we know that it's a by product of the brain. We know that neurones firing are responsible for thought processes. We know the parts responsible for emotions, logical reasoning, senses, memory, involuntary actions etc. But that doesn't we fully understand how it works. We know the working principles of the brain.

Well said but consciousness is another very difficult problem and I don't think it is right to say we know how it is spawned. It remains a mystery and this is why you have what is called "the hard problem of consciousness."

But we can't for example extract memory from a person's mind and play it like a video.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

There are many things that are impossible with our current scientific knowledge which will become possible in future though.

One thing I personally believe is that everything that happens is recorded in literal video in the light around us.

This stands to scientific reason because light carries images and this is how we see, when those images come into contact with our eyes and get interpreted by our brains.

What is needed is the appropriate tool to download images from light and it will become possible to even view events from the past. If you think this is far fetched, consider that when you look at a star you are actually seeing an image from the very far past because it has taken that light millions of years to travel to you. In fact the star you are looking at may have actually ceased to exist.

Thus you never can tell, it may one day be possible to view memories like video.

Chief2410:
Nope,I have no business with religion...I'm only interested in truth.

Excellent.

However your use of the term "cycle of samsara" is what drew my attention.

What makes you believe in that cycle.

Furthermore I find that many people belonging to esoteric sects say they have no business with religion but in truth they do have their esoteric sects, such as Eckankar, The Grail Movement, The Rosicrucian Order and others. Do you perchance belong to any such organisations?

Moremii:
This will be my first entry into this lengthy elaboration of my faith. There'll be more to talk about later as the days go by.

Let's start by talking about the Bible.

Whether we like it or not, we simply cannot deny the fact that it is arguably the most powerful and influential book in the history of mankind, and for this very reason it is so disheartening that it is also the biggest weapon fashioned by ignorant souls and all types of snake oil salesmen and charlatans against Christianity itself. Political opportunists masquerading as theologians took the liberty to mutilate and pervert the true narrative of the gospel systematically, deliberately suppressing the original gospel narrative that was predominant in the early church.

It all started with the Council (or Catastrophe rather) of Nicea. When Constantine emerged as Roman Emperor circa 324, he came to meet an empire that was fractured with multiple religious traditions, and in spite of countless persecutions and sabotage efforts, Christianity remained as popular as ever by the early 4th century, and even spread its tentacles much further. The religion had already been officially legalized through the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, but when some factions in the church started preaching about Jesus not being co-eternal or consubstantial with God, Constantine possibly saw this as a threat to split the Christian community that he was trying to use as a cohesive, unified force or unit to consolidate his Roman Empire.

So with this, it's safe to say that the Council of Nicea was politically motivated. It wasn't driven by the true quest for truth or knowledge. I want everyone reading this right now to take note of this because I'll show you why it's very important later at the end of this write-up. Constantine was just looking for imperial unity among the Romans that would ensure their continued domination over everyone else as a global force. He needed to ensure that they had a religious identity, established through institutional monopoly of the Catholic Church. Incidentally this would crush spiritual diversity for centuries. The best demonstration for this can be found within the concluding lines of the Nicean Creed itself:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come. Amen.

And if you read the entire creed in its entirety, you'll notice that it oddly places a lot of emphasis on salvation through being a believer and an active member of the church, introducing the Orthodox doctrine where submission to ecclesiastical authorities is emphasized over liberation through direct spiritual insight, the latter of which was the more popularly understood path to salvation among the earlier Christian sects. Obviously, I'm sure this strategic emphasis didn't happen coincidentally. The most effective way to consolidate power is by establishing a hierarchy and letting the people around you know who is boss. Hence, the establishment of church "fathers" and "patriachs". This would prove to be useful to Constantine for imperial power.

To achieve this, Constantine and his fellow bandits had to suppress any and all preachings and doctrines that would go against this special narrative they crafted to serve their political ambitions. Countless religious books and texts that were affiliated with Christianity, but contrasted with the accepted narrative were cast out and forbidden. The preachers of these forbidden gospels were persecuted and killed. This culminated in the Library of Alexandria being burnt down, destroying countless religious manuscripts. The so-called "church fathers" at the time then began their evil campaign against the gospel, brainwashing the masses against religious texts that threatened their institutional authority. To their credit, their plan succeeded, because the tree of mendacity they planted still reaps fruit even to this day. And the rest is history.

Or is it...?

Thankfully, universal truth stands undefeated because you cannot hide it completely, no matter how long you try. December 1945 came with a huge breakthrough that would send ripples throughout the religious community: the discovery of religious codex in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. These texts, probably hidden and preserved to the best of their capacity by ancient Christians, were revealed to be Christian scriptures excluded from inclusion in today's Bible.

Going through the texts, it's easy to see why they were censored with so much fervor. Funnily enough, it reveals that even in its heavily redacted form, the Bible still contains relevant insights from the true gospel that so-called men of "God" today have continuously misunderstood or obscured, knowingly or unknowingly. The Nag Hammadi texts served as undeniable proof of the sophistication and diversity of early Christian thought, which the so-called "church fathers" obviously found inconvenient to their narrative structure of divine hierarchy. If you read them in conjunction with the current Bible, you will realize that orthodoxy as we understand it today, was actually a minority position that has been forced on the mainstream through nefarious brainwashing.

One of the most prominent doctrines in the early church before it was defiled by the Romans is COSMIC DUALISM. Essentially, this doctrine presents a flawed and perverted material world that serves as a prison for the divine soul. True salvation involves acquiring divine knowledge that allows the spirit to escape from this material trap and return to its true divine source. I'll quote some passages from these texts to illustrate. You can find these texts at gnosis.org

It happened that the realm (aeon) Wisdom (Sophia)
Of conceptual thought (Epinoia),
Began to think for herself,
She used the thinking (enthymesis)
And the foreknowledge (prognosis)
Of the Invisible Spirit.
She intended to reveal an image from herself
To do so without the consent of the Spirit,
Who did not approve,
Without the thoughtful assistance of her masculine counterpart,
Who did not approve.
Without the Invisible Spirit’s consent
Without the knowledge of her partner
She brought it into being.
Because she had unconquerable Power
Her thought was not unproductive.
Something imperfect came out of her.
Different in appearance from her.
Because she had created it without her masculine counterpart
She gave rise to a misshapen being unlike herself.

Sophia saw what her desire produced.
It changed into the form of a dragon with a lion’s head
And eyes flashing lightning bolts.
She cast him far from her,
Outside of the realm of the immortal beings
So that they could not see him.
[She had created him in ignorance.]
Sophia surrounded him with a brilliant cloud,
Put a throne in the center part of the cloud
So that no one would see it.
[Except for the Holy Spirit called the Mother of the Living]
She named him Yaldabaoth.
Yaldabaoth is the chief ruler.
He took great Power (dynamis) from his mother,
Left her, and moved away from his birthplace.
He assumed command,
Created realms for himself
With a brilliant flame that continues to exist even now. (The Apocryphon of John)

The world came into being through an error. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world is not incorruptible and the creator of the world is not incorruptible. (The Gospel of Philip)

But if you want to dismiss what I'm saying because it's not from the scriptures you're used to, then let me surprise you because even booke from the Bible supports this narrative.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36)

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32)

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Tying it back to what I said in my first post, the god of this world is not the true God. He is Yaldaboath: a deformed entity that revels in ignorance and deceit. The true God resides in the divine Pleroma beyond this physical earth and he is called the Invisible Spirit, or the Monad.

The problem of evil was the biggest obstacle to my Christian faith until I came across these texts, and suddenly all the things that didn't make logical sense to me back then started to become clear. A God of infinite love cannot endorse genocide, slavery, infanticide and every other evil acts, and demand mindless worship all at the same time. The Bible today has become the biggest vehicle for sharing ignorance to innocent people, brainwashing them to believe nonsense. When you factor these deleted books back into the equation, the problem of evil suddenly has a reasonable explanation: the god of this earth is a tyrant that thinks he's the ultimate creator and he represents ignorance and megalomania.

in a twisted way, it also made me understand the hypocrisy of people who call themselves Christians today. They're the splitting image of their god: fickle-minded, self-obsessed, ignorant, selfish and plagued by delusions of grandeur.

Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant.

Where have you been.

Have you heard or read of the Demiurge. Because part of what you described aligns with that.

FreeIgboho / Tctrills. Within this write up there is much that should enlighten you on the history of the Bible.

Everyday247:
Okay then it looks like I'm the one who misunderstood. My bad.

Why are these evolutionary problems?

Well, on this thread I have cited the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction for example.

As to the topic of the thread I have cited the paucity of strong explanations for much instinctual behaviour.

This doesn't mean I am saying there aren't explanations. The generality of instinctual behaviour can be easily explained. However there are some patterns which are difficult to explain.

Everyday247:
Well first of all atheism is older than both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory.

Secondly, not all atheists subscribe to evolution and the big bang theory.

Also, what are these problems?

I was giving an analogy. The point being that not everyone who queries current scientific understanding is saying "God did it."

It needn't be about either the ToE or the BB Theory.

Chief2410:
You worry about Our ancestors that have reincarnated countless number of times already? Worry about yourself breaking out from this loop of samsara.

Are you Hindu.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tctrills

I am surprised that with your usual closed mind on Christian issues you are capable of asking a sensible question. Kudos.

This question alone is sufficient to let the discerning know that the whole idea that one must know Jesus of Nazareth before being "saved" is bunkum.

Moremii:
Yes, the atomic structure is well-documented. It is also teachable, but neither of that is the point. What you've missed here apparently is that the mechanisms that are responsible for instinctual behavior are largely unexplained at the fundamental level and so therefore, are not readily available in standard evolutionary literature. So practically, you're just assuming the existence of comprehensive scientific understanding where there is none. How do complex behavioral algorithms emerge from molecular processes? How do organisms access environmental information they've never encountered?

Are we going to sit here and pretend like these puzzles have been solved?

The problem with you reductionists is that your intellectual cowardice always seems to elude you lot. When it comes to evolution, Google, ChatGPT and all the other resources you half-heartedly name-dropped only document the statistical link between behaviors and reproductive success, not the actual mechanisms through which the information about the environment is encoded in genetic sequences and accessed by our consciousness.

I'm going to go out on a leg here and assert here that you haven't even properly examined the so-called explanations you've been lazily citing because if you truly did, I don't think it should cost you anything to just articulate them, even if in just two short paragraphs.

Once again thank you ever so much. The truth is even when we discussed the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction which I raised years ago and which Plaetton referred to (that's what he meant when he said the issues have been discussed years ago), the attitude you have described is exactly what I was faced with from Plaetton and others. Not once did any of them attempt even the shortest description of an actual answer. All along they just pretended the answers were available and flung insults for the inquiry. Meanwhile any brief research on the matter reveals it to be a thorny one even for scientists.

Moremii:
Are you always this condescending? Sir, I wasn't asking you to give me basic lessons in biochemistry. I was only drawing your attention to the fact that there is an obvious gap between the way our brain works at molecular levels and how we make decisions or exhibit complex behaviors. If you have a way to bridge this gap, then I'll be glad to hear it. And how does protein synthesis explain how information from the environment becomes encoded or how consciousness is able to access non-experiential knowledge? I genuinely want to know.

Just so you know, I'm equally not obligated to accept your lazy hand-waving as a convincing argument. Once again, if you can't sufficiently explain the mechanism, I don't understand why you can't just accept that you have limited knowledge on the subject.

Brilliantly said.

I think you really touched upon the core issue and summarised it well and even much better than I have been able to when you wrote "how consciousness is able to access non-experiential knowledge?."

That is the core of the matter.
Thank you and good morning.

Everyday247:
You did not need to go this far.

You should have just pointed it out as the typical god of gaps argument.

This is just my take though.

I hope you know even an atheist can point out problems with for example, the theory of evolution, without it being the case that he is trying to say "God did it."

AlbertNewton:
By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.

I believe there are logical answers, even scientific ones. However I find the set of answers most present me with unsatisfactory.

Note that I said this -

DeepSight:
PS: There is actually a suitable answer to this question. I want to see if you put your finger on it and we can discuss from there.

The word "inexplicable" which I used. By that I simply meant pretty hard to explain and in some instances perhaps almost impossible, with current scientific knowledge.

I would be interested in your take, thanks.
Good morning.

zeyt:
These guys has smell blood. An easy win over Tunibu. If Tunibu did not brought hardship and hunger to the massess they dont stand a chance. But he failed the masses woefully. Accumulating more money for the government is what Tunibu is after allowing the ppl to wallow in poverty. He insisted that Nigeria will go broke if subsidy is not removed which is the laziest alternative he took.

Very lazy and cowardly. He could not face the corrupt barons in the subsidy scheme, rather he unleashes his so called boldness on the vulnerable poor.

benardtotti:
it will be dicey accepting all these I will do single term obi and amaechi are offering.

Because we will just hear something like "after deep reflection, and at the urging of the masses....."