₦airaland Forum

deolu2000:
actually i was referring to the recklessness in terms of financial mismanagement, okonjo was right there wasn't she? Am nt sayn she stole or otherwise let EFCC sort dt bt she was right there when care was thrown out of the window by the past govt, was that how they taught her in harvard?

How is a Finance Minister responsible for what other MDAs do with the funds duly appropriated for their use and duly disbursed to them as such by the Finance Minister/ RMAFC?

deolu2000:
enlighten me about the truth, am reading.

I don't see how I need to enlighten you. Nigeria was not in recession under her watch: that is an iron cast fact. I thus do not see how you can claim that the economy is what it is today on account of her stewardship.

On the contrary, the three things that tanked the economy were very unintelligent macro economic decisions by Buhari/ Adeosun/ Udo Udoma/ Emefiele: The implementation of the TSA, the scandalous Foreign exchange policies of the new government and the petrol subsidy part removal all occurring within the same short space of time in which you had a massive drop in oil prices. These three decisions were nothing short of economic suicide for Nigeria - and none of these decisions were taken by NOI. They were taken by the illiterate current president of Nigeria and his semi-literate Finance Minister in collusion with the clueless CBN Governor and the misplaced Udo Udoma.

deolu2000:
Gbenu e soun! Who NOI epp? No be under her harvard knowledge the economy of NG was plunged into the disaster of today?

Why tell such a lie?

PastorAIO:
My dear lovely Deepsight, my beloved friend whose mind I revere so highly. Look what I'm doing here. I'm creating a thread just for you.

If you see me on any thread posting something that you have a comment that you'd like to make about it, please do so here on this thread. I will read and consider any points that you make with relish.

But please don't comment on any posts I make on any other thread than this one. I know I can't stop you from doing so as this is a public forum, but I'd appreciate it if you limited your addresses to me to this thread. It is a special needs thread for a very Special Needs fellow.

Thank you.

^^^ How girlish. Is it that time of the month or something? This is simply re.tarded.
Go back to the threads in question and face the points at issue and stop being such a childish w*nker.

PastorAIO:
It bothers me with such an utter feeling of foreboding when someone tells me or anyone else for that matter that they are communicating something of God's supreme nature using words and language that are designed for communicating temporal experiences.

. . . Says the same girl who attempted to qualify God within Nouns or Verbs.

Joshthefirst - I hope you see this.

It sickens me that I once thought this girl intelligent and profound.

SirWere:
Why am I getting the feeling an uninvited person will come and derail this thread

:

Pull your seat belt across my friend. Your salady brother here is in "the spirit".

^^^ Chisos! He really is a girl!

Joshthefirst:


You guys are still hilarious after all these years.

What a nasty woman. . . .

AnonyNymous:
noun
3.
substance or nature:
of such a being as to arouse fear.
4.
something that exists:
inanimate beings.
5.
a living thing:
strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6.
a human being; person:
the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7.
(initial capital letter) God.

By Merriam Webster. I believe that is the definition of 'being' PastorAIO was referring to and not the verb 'to be' or its form as a noun.

I cannot see how this takes anything away from what I am saying.

Please make yourself clear, next time. I do not know what your views on god are.

I used to say - "empirical and intuitive deist" which is somewhat contradictory but should tell - however these days I find all labels rather tiresome. I believe in God but I am entirely irreligious.

I, as a deist believe in a noninterventionist, remote god whose nature is yet to be known. I also believe that the god makes up the universe as well (awareness of quantum particles) so what I believe in isn't far from panantheism.

We are largely on the same page then.

The Christian god, however is much different. It is a remote entity. Therefore, panantheism makes no sense in this regard, as 'god' has already been defined. God has been defined as not being part of our material universe, (something he/it intends to destroy when its son comes back for the rapture) what we call, existence. It makes no sense to define something one way, then add another definition that clearly contradicts the initial one. I cannot tell you I am a boy and come back a few minutes later to tell you I am a girl.

The Christian rendition of God is correct in my view in terms of essentials such as being the Origin, being Eternal, being uncreated, being the creator, being transcendent . . . . however the Christian rendition of God runs into problems when it dabbles into oddities such as the Trinity, the concept of Salvation by the sacrifice on the cross, the concept of original sin, altogether with the very pagan nature of the Yahweh of the Old Testament.

**
Scrolling through the thread, I saw that you made this statement.

Which is completely different from what you are arguing with me now. You are arguing 'being' with the definition 'to be' here, when PastorAIO 's initial post was referring to the definition 'god', and in this post, you used the definition 'substance'. Why shift the goalposts?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Yes, being refers to "to be" - and it is the very question about the being of God which is at play here. I can't see what straw you are picking here.

Joshthefirst:
Of course. I've been logical in this matter from the start. Carefully explaining my communication with no solid reply from you apart from puerile attacks like this and looking for a play on words and loopholes in my conversation and mockery.

If you are a embittered and troubled man I can't do much to help you on the net. Nairaland isn't a good place for troubled people.

A most embittered and deeply troubled old girl she is indeed!

Joshthefirst:
When faced with sound logical thinking you come up with idiot.ic falsehood and musings to counter concur and buffer your own embracing of randomized directionlessness thinking. Well-done.

Bingo.
The chap is a laugh. A girly one for that matter.

JackBizzle:
What? Why are you running away from the salad? The salad is the word!

For the salad is indeed the word, and it is very meet and very right: and most excellent for your health.

~ The Holy Salad, Chapter 1 vs 1.

In fact you have inspired me. I am going to start writing the Holy Salad. It will be the sum of all HOLY TRUTH.

Be sure to read it when issued.

PastorAIO:
Please my friend, I am about to unfollow this thread. I would kindly appreciate it if you ceased to mention me on this thread especially when discussing with deepsight.

I'm not prepared to read through what this thread is about to become which is pages upon pages of nonsensically long posts full of flowery sounding phrases that are in fact rubbish.

I don't appreciate people telling me what I actually meant to say rather than listening to what I said.
I said God is a person, which was wrong. I later corrected myself to say that God is 3 persons. The OP is xtian so we are talking about a christian God here.
Only someone who was not raised a christian, or a complete idiot, would misunderstand what I mean by Person. No need for further explanations.

Thank you for your attention. and thanks in advance for not mentioning me on this thread again.

Thank you.

Escapist shallow nonsense, do buzz off, you will not be missed. I do not enjoy discussions where my respondent sounds like a little girl.

AnonyNymous:
Glad we agree on nouns having the ability to exist or not exist.

That is not quite what I said, also please see the addendum I added above.

I disagree with you here as well: a being can exist, and not exist.

This is illogical and impossible - have you averted your mind to the very definition of the word "being"?

"Being" simply means "to be" - that is to exist or a state of existing. It can be both a noun or verb in that a person is a being, and you can also have a state of being. (E.g: "The situation being difficult, he had to make a firm decision" )

That was also the meaning I ascribed to PastorAIO 's initial post. The existence or non existence of a being is the very reason we have the theist/atheist debate.

There is such an inherent contradiction here that I honestly think we are using words differently. How can you say something does not exist and yet describe it as a being?

Does the flying spaghetti monster exist? Christians say it does not exist. However members of the Church of Flying Spaghetti (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) say it exists!

The movement is simply a humorous mockery of religion and theism, nothing more.

However, it will be intellectually dishonest of you to send the argument in that direction, as the 'god' in question was the Christian god which has been defined for us many times.

You are right here and I must cede this point: however I did not intend to be dishonest at all - I simply took the discussion from my point of view of God - which is well known on this forum so I did not see any reason to think anyone would mistake me for arguing for the Biblical God. Haven said that, I must still say that the generality of the essential or core attributes of God as described by Christianity and most religions still coincide with my view. Core attributes such as being transcendental. eternal, and the creator.

Its not wrong to call such a 'being' humanoid

It is.

Therefore such a being, a remote entity, cannot said to be 'existence' itself as that is a logical fallacy.

See Pantheism/ Panentheism again.

@ Anonymous -

Deep Sight: I agree with this definition of existence and I would give the exact same answer you have given above to that question.

In fact, in re-thinking this and to avoid confusing you or other respondents (especially as regards the use of the word "person" ), I will simply answer that question by saying that I don't know and I have never seen such a thing before.

^^^ The evolution of character is trite. That is not in dispute at all. It takes nothing away from the existential nature of being - which is what the term "person" refers to as being discussed in this thread and as raised by you. It is a waste of time for you to keep trying to shift the goal post and change the discussion.

AnonyNymous:
ex·ist·ence
iɡˈzistəns/
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

ex·ist
iɡˈzist/
verb
have objective reality or being.

That is the definition of existence. So, does a man with three heads and unicorn horns exist? Refer to the above definition. Does the person I describe have objective reality? No. So my answer would be, 'Such a person does not exist, to my knowledge'.

I agree with this definition of existence and I would give the exact same answer you have given above to that question.

His argument centred on 'calling a noun, a verb'. You cannot say something like "I do not smile, I am a smile". It makes no logical sense. If you wish to refute his argument, explain how it makes any sense to call a noun a verb.

You may note that thus far, I have not disputed that at all. My concern was strictly limited to to the question of existent and non existent persons. To the fact that it is illogical to refer to any person as not existent. A person necessarily exists. And in this, I refer to a person as a being - this is what was being discussed - and not a person as a character - which AIO shamefully attempted to twist the discussion into, having seen the inanity of that which he set forth.

Building on that, my more subtle point drives at the self existence of God.

Perhaps I may already be leading you on too far when I say that, had proper answers been given to my poser, I would have wished to draw the discussion towards the very all-encompassing nature of that which we define as "God" and that all-encompassing nature certainly lends itself to a credible view that it is all existence.

Such a view is neither strange nor unheard of. It is encompassed in pantheism and panentheism -

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God" ) is the belief that the divine interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[1] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[2]

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

As per your point on Noun and Verb as raised by AIO - as I said before, I have not so far disputed that. However in taking the discussion further I will say that that cannot be true of the all encompassing element that we call God. It can only be true with respect to limited finite beings within this finite reality.

And once we recognize the all-encompassing nature of the element under discussion we can take the discussion further to understanding that that element cannot be constricted to noun or verb: for it is as much a thing as it is a happening: a continuous unceasing eternal happening.

AnonyNymous:
I beg to differ. One question: Does a man with three heads and unicorn horns on his back exist?

Answering this question is meaningless: I could equally ask you if lions with lizard heads and rat feet exist.

What are you driving at? Spell it out.

State what you differ on.

PastorAIO:
Abeg Craze man, I made a mistake to respond to you in the first place. Please carry your idiotic nonsense and find someone who is deranged enough to want to discuss with you. cheerio!

You are a cheap waste of space - Ad hominems added upon your pathetic attempt to deny that which was being discussed just reeks of both low intellect and dishonesty.

I am certain you know I am not moved by your meaningless words. I much prefer my insanity to your dishonesty, flatness and lack of intelligence.

Many cheers too.

PastorAIO:
Bingo!! I was shocked that the guy seemed to not know the meaning of the word. But apparently he doesn't.

You are talking pure and unrefined nonsense sir.

One definition of Person would be a set of observable characteristics that mark an entity as distinct.

And this goes far enough to add outright dishonesty to what you are attempting to say. I frankly find it pathetic, that having been found out - you resort to this sadly shameless attempt to change the issue at play:

For you now say - "one definition of person" - whereas you know very well that that is not the definition of person as concerns this thread! Indeed you know - and it is most apparent to all - that the very definition of "person" which arose from your initial comment has nothing whatever to do with this comical attempt to reduce it to characters on a stage as per fictional drama.

Your own original question - as to persons existing or not existing - which sparked my concern - shows this very clearly. Even more so: to put it beyond cavil and beyond your absurd denials: the OP to which you were responding to and the context of your response shows this to be very true: that the term "person" being discussed was used in an existential sense about the existence of a being.

Haba, how low can you sink?

A Fictional person does NOT exist.

Please don't waste your spittle lecturing me on this: it would be better spent on your boy-fan Jack-Bizzle and his nonsensical analogy of Ghost workers as being existent persons.

Christianity goes so far as to attribute to one being, namely God, 3 distinct persons.

This is irrelevant and at all events, not all of Christianity does this.

The word Person comes from the latin word Persona which is the original term for a Mask. When an actor puts on a Persona (mask) he then plays the part of that person in the play. The very same actor can then put on a different Persona (mask) for a different scene and then play the part of the other Person.

You have run out of ideas. As I said above, your attempt to reduce the discussion on existent beings (persons) to fictional drama characters is comical, hypocritical, disgraceful, dishonest, pathetic and absolutely unworthy.

The person is nothing other than the set of characteristics that define a being (within a certain context).

Stop twisting. This is not the "person" that is being discussed here. The "person" being discussed here is an existent being and not the vague nonsense you have attempted here.

Someone who believes in reincarnation can see the soul as transmigrating from one person to another person.

No - from one body to another body.

It is shocking that you can speak of a soul migrating from person to person - and liken that to reincarnation. This shows how desperately confused you are these days. A soul migrating from person to person is more akin to the idea of "possession" than anything remotely resembling reincarnation.

Kay17:
I doubt if amongst the properties of personhood is existence. Personhood is one idea while existence is another. They are not mutually exclusive

I am at a loss as to how this comment is of any relevance to my comments above given that a person (or personhood) can only be conceived of within existence or as something existent.

Indeed, there is nothing that can be conceived of without existence or as not being existent.

For this reason, your comment - and AIO's revert above - is meaningless.

Period.

RosaConsidine:
Interesting thread, asides the slurs being flung back and forth. Let me jump in on the current debate - existence and non-existence.

In my opinion, it is possible for something or someone to exist or not exist. The question, however, is what parameters are used for judging said existence. I think too often, we juxtapose "life" and all it's related tenses with existence. Let me explain with an analogy.

Take Harry Potter for example. As far as we know, no human boy that wears round glasses, has a scar on his forehead and was prophesied to defeat the dark lord ever lived on This earth. So to the average mind, Harry Potter does not exist and has never existed.

However, the very mention of the name "Harry Potter" evokes thoughts of a magical boy on a mission to rescue the world from evil forces. If Harry Potter Does not exist, how come we can have such thoughts that not only put a story to "him" but also attaches a persona and even an appearance when we know that If something Does not exist in the true sense of the word, then we cannot even have the slightest idea of what that thing is or should be like?

So Does/did Harry Potter exist in the physical sense of human existence? No (unless there's something J.K Rowling is not telling us). However, the fact that the mention of his name evokes thoughts of a person with a story, a persona and even an appearance is a pointer to the fact that he Does exist - just not in the physical sense but in the fictional and ideological sense. The pointer here is that a physical presence is not the only parameter by which existence is measured. In fact, the first proof of some form of existence is an idea of what that existence entails. For instance, If someone walks up to me and asks if someone named Donald Hilary Bush Kennedy-Clinton exists, my answer would be a profound no, since I can't attach any memories or ideas to any such person, whether real or imaginary. However, If the person asking has created a fictional character that goes by such a name and has attached attributes of physicality and ideology to the character, then the character Does exist - even If only in the mind of the creator.

An atheist such as Plaetton (and many other atheists) would readily then agree that God exists - as a mental construct of the human mind.

The mere existence of any abstraction as a thought is not what is being discussed here.

JackBizzle:
Deepsight 3:16-

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was salad. For whosoever believeth in the salad and eateth of it shall have everlasting eloquence.

PastorAIO:
That one na revised standard version.
My own King John's Revised version says: ..... 'whosoever believeth in the salad and eateth of it shall have everlasting flatulence'.
My own is from the original parchments believed to have been written by the hand of the apostle himself so favour it.

Lol.

Good jokes, but your good humour scratches nothing off the substance at play.
I have seen it before, the "resort to comedy" approach to refuting substance.

No dice gents.

Ishilove:
Genie!

I remember!

wiegraf:
After posting such drivel, how do you sleep at night?

When barred from my alcohol, Lexotan helps.
Not on account of any drivel though.

What do you down hope to accomplish with this?

Since it escapes you, I will go straight to the point: the validity of the argument of self existence and the impossibility of nothingness. That's it.

What are you even beginning to suggest? That negatives cannot make logical sense?

I don't know where you got this from.

This being particularly ironic, considering it's your side that consistently asks us to prove a negative.

I have never asked anyone to prove a negative - except perhaps (arguably) in my old thread "Revisiting the Burden of Proof" - AND in that thread there were several tangents that I came from. I don't recall if you were involved in that discussion. Nonetheless my discourses on the existence of God have generally set about to prove it, rather than require it to be disproved. Having said that, there is indeed a question mark remaining about whether or not the burden of proof does not properly shift in the circumstances.

Here is the thread, for your ease of reference:

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

BTW, are you and Josh the same person oga?

No sorry. Not into such. One time several years ago I tried to crack a prank such as being a different person in order to mock some dear rather touchy Christians concerning the virgin birth, I got caught out instantly by my second post as I used the wrong device! Very annoying!

JackBizzle:
Babe, the guy is annoying. He always acts like he is right and he knows it all, whereas, he just packages bullshite like manure seller.

You are funny:

Imagine him arguing that there can't be people that don't exist? Really??

How terribly odd. "People" refers to something that exists. To persons. It is beyond me how you can sleep well arguing that there can be people who do not exist.

And then to use ghost workers as an example of "people that do not exist" - especially in the context of the preceding contentions.

"Ghost-workers" are not people in any sense.

Do dead people exist in his village? mtcheww.

Life after the transition of a person from his physical body is a self evident fact to anyone conscious enough to even be aware of himself and his daily existence within this body.

However the question of life after death still is not even necessary here as in either event we are speaking of a person who existed on this material plane: even for the doubters who say that life ends at death: one may revert to the effect that even the physical remains continue in the material cycle of life - that would rest the more subtle meanings of the OP which elude you.

I believe the truth is that your words of anger stem from your recognition of how ludicrously out of place your "ghost workers" example was, when you first attempted to give examples of the existence of persons that could "not exist."

I am not responsible for your incomplete reasoning processes or the paucity of thought within your mind.

JackBizzle:
Mr. word salad again with his folly- so now, I do not understand your argument because I pointed out what was wrong with it?



Let's get some basic facts down.

1) A ghost worker is a person on paper. The point here is that such a person does not exist in reality or in the physical sense- bodily.

2) A dead person is someone who no longer exists consciously. And if dead long enough, a dead person will have no physical body or existence (body rots away).



So when you say that a person can not "not exist", you are wrong on so many levels.

No word salads or insults towards my intelligence by you will change this fact.

For a second, I was willing to engage, but reading the above, that would just amount to insulting myself.
I will only place the worlds in bold for your introspection - if you are capable of same.

JackBizzle:
Does a ghost worker exist?

The simple answer is no - because a Ghost worker was never a person at all.

Does a dead person exist?

The simple answer is yes: and this is to be contrasted with a ghost worker who never lived or died at all and so simply never existed. A dead person does exist exactly because it is a person and not a sack of meat.

I wonder why you keep writing big word salads that are nonsensical. So all your epistle is just to argue rubbish that a person "can not be in non-existence"?


Wow.

Don't worry, in writing what I wrote, I knew very well that it would fly over the heads of the likes of yourself and AIO. In your case because of a certain density of wit, but in his case simply on account with an obsession with chasing his tail.

To help you: what I wrote is really directed at the divine quality of self-existence: which is what the OP is really hinting at, even if clumsily so.

PastorAIO:
A person can either exist or not exist, yes or no?

This is rather odd.

Is it really possible for a person to "not exist"?

When one says that "a person can either exist or not exist" - this suggests that you may have persons that exist and persons that do not exist.

Is this not a very self evidently false thought construction?

For is there any such thing as a "person" that does "not exist"?

It is a flat out contradiction in terms therefore to say that "a person can either exist or not exist" - thus suggesting two alternate possible types of persons: those that exist and those that do not exist!

Evidently therefore, the correct thing to say would be - "Persons exist" - or - "a person exists" - period.

@ OP: Does this build a thread of reasoning somewhere in what you are trying to say regarding the self existent nature of God?

PS - You rightly should not worry too much about the futilist AIO who starts nowhere and goes nowhere: as a matter of fact, he has propounded quite exactly what your OP says in the past, in simply different words.

plaetton:
Unconvincing.
Too light on substance.

It is not true that many adhere to religion and have no faith? It is not true that many have faith and adhere to no religion?
It is not true that faith is what I described it as: belief or hope in an idea, person or expectation?

What about these is insufficient to show you that religion is not the same thing as faith.

A religion is an established practice often by a group with a set of beliefs and practices.
My faith in a better tomorrow needs no organized religion: and there are indeed faithless religionists; you cannot deny that.

And what is spirituality? It is (or rather, should be, for each of us) what Nwankwo has described it as: and again: you of all people should relate to it: as you speak so often of energies: perhaps I may describe your spirituality as the essential energy or vibration that is the inner you.

That has nothing in this world to do with religion.

plaetton:
It's the same tactics as trying to separate a bad Christian from Christianity.

Not the same at all: see my revert above: and yet a bad Christian and Christianity are two different things.

plaetton:
You are being evasive, sire.

Let me put it in another way.
Is there a difference between religion and Faith ?

Trying to separate religion and spirituality is like trying to separate Faith from religion.

Absolutely wrong sire.

There is indeed a difference between religion and faith. Many adhere to a religion and have no faith. Many have faith and adhere to no religion. I have faith and I do not adhere to any religion. Indeed, what is faith but belief and hope in something: in an idea, a person or an expectation? I have great faith in myself, I have great faith in love and I have immense faith in the grand order of all things (which many may call "the will of God" ).

In the grand scheme of things - a scintilla of which we cannot even conceive or apprehend, we are way too presumptuous to begin to judge and conclusively assess the justice of the Grand Order of things: of eras and epochs which we cannot and will never be able to conceive in the bird's eye view trajectory: we grope: worse than the blind men about an elephant: and ridiculously declare that which we know not.

Of all people: you ought to know better.