₦airaland Forum

vislabraye: Must it turn to insult?

Ofcourse I don't agree with the slapping issue seeing that she's underaged. However, the prosecutor didn't do his homework well.

Where is the insult? Simple recommendations of mine to make the world a better place: which you cannot disagree with, will'ya?

[quote author=sayit_out1]Because na Pastor dats why pple still dey talk dis mata?

Do you know how many people police, army, navy, air force, agboro, omo-onile etc dey slap on a daily basis in public; sometime even family men 4 their children front?

As for the victim and her family, the lawyer(s) just dey use them as him ATM machine.

...be careful when fighting against a man called by GOD on assignment cos whether he is right or wrong as you think, you challenge the ONE who sent him. "think about it" [/quote]Obviously you were born to fill the deficit of st.upidity existing in the world at the time of your birth.

That deficit is now no longer existing: in fact there is a surplus of st.upidity now in the world:

As such your existence is no longer required.

I will recommend that you commit a quiet suicide by hanging in your bedroom as a generous and altruistic gift to humanity,

Much appreciated.

I remain,

Your comrade in the defense of human intellect,

Deep Sight

Deep Sight: How reasonable would it be for him to refuse to show such an example AND THEN contend that the well known unique nature of finger prints is a mere assumption AND THEN insist that since we have not seen all finger prints, the statement that finger prints are unique is a COMPOSITIONAL FALLACY - and wait for it - on top of all that, when we say to him that "as far as we know, finger prints are unique" - he reverts with saying that since that is only "as far as we know," then the statement that finger prints are unique is an argument from ignorance!

Does this make sense to anybody?

The above is just what Jayriginal still discloses: and as such shows himself as being positively unreasonable, illogical, and even da,ft, thereby.

Evil Brain: Let's try a little thought experiment. Imagine, just for the sake of this debate, that the bible didn't exist. Or that you knew for a fact that it was just a bunch of meaningless stories with no hidden significance.

How would you then know that god was unfathomable. How would you know that hehad any interest in human activities? How would you know he created the world? How would you know that he even existed at all?

The fact is that all your beliefs about god are founded on the assumption that what is written in the bible is actually true. The're is also the assumption that your interpretation of the bible is correct.

The second assumption is probably wrong because based on the sheer number of different versions of Christianity that exist (and have existed in the past) the probability that yours happens to be the correct one is miniscule.

The first assumption is demonstrably wrong because the bible contradicts both itself as well a huge amount of the knowledge we have gained from all the various branches of science. In order to believe the bible is absolutely true, one has to close your mind to logic and the influence of new information like those misguided people in America fighting to stop schoolchildren from learning real biology in class.

Without the bible, you would have no knowledge of the nature of god, or his personality, or if he has a personality. You may believe that god exists, but without the bible, or whatever holy book your religion happens to use, you have absolutely no evidence to support that hypothesis.

And like I said earlier, the bible contradicts science. The bible contradicts reality. The bible even contradicts itself times without number. That means all your religious beliefs have no foundation, which is inevitably why they must all come crashing down.

Based on THOSE assumptions (the bible), yes. But based on commonsense, NO.

engrtee: I cal dis d universal question because almost everyone askd dat question as a child. The question is

WHO CREATED GOD?

I remember askin the question as a child. I recived different answer but not satisfactory. I was later told it was a mystery and then i stopped asking.

I remember the question becus an 8 year old threw it at me. Am confused on how to answer him witout using much logic and philosophy.

God is the eternal element which is not said to be created: the same way as eternity, having no beginning, is not created. For starter's see God as Eternity itself.

k2039: I dont even need the Holy Scriptures to prove that the Holy Spirit speaks.Its a personal experience from the day I got saved,spoke in tongues till now.

Rabasacaba nebe hembe bascarapana ipolala havana, hallelujah.

Happy now?

k2039: GOD=FATHER+SON+HOLY SPIRIT
I think the problem with most people is just that they use the word Father and God interchangeably and thats why their is a lot of confusion

My dear brother.

Please do not be sucked into this confusion.

GOD = GOD.

Jesus = Jesus.

Holy Spirit = The Living Power of God.

HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You mean this topic has come up again?

AND VERY VERY interesting to see that EVEN Christians, ARE reasonably questioning the idea that the Holy Spirit is a personal being by itself!

Well, fellas, acquaint yasefs with past encounters on same!

https://www.nairaland.com/490515/holy-spirit-personal-sentient-being

jayriginal: Of course, with a wave of the hand, you will pronounce this to be "voodoo" .

You obviously do not understand any part of the quotes you posted. You simplistically see these things and imagine that they obviate something like cause and effect in material phenomena. You may never realize it, but with this last post, you have just shown a staggering degree of logical incapacity and ignorance - you are an Osuofia in "Quantum" London indeed.

It is sad to boast about things you are desperately ignorant of, but much worse to show your Osuofiaism in deference to dolts who have no idea what they speak about: and the very worst is to lack a grasp of the application of these ideas to the debate at hand.

Deep Sight:In fact, i throw a challenge. I contend that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that has ever been as adamantly and repeatedly proven in our reality, as the law of cause and effect. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON AT ALL. Infact, EVERY PROVEN PHENOMENON is proven with reference to, and by the law of cause and effect. Nothing is proven without reference to that basic precept. NOTHING. I challenge Jayriginal to mention ONE such thing. Just ONE.

Answer please? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you.

I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers.

Finger Prints.

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique?

4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence?

Planets

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

4. Have we observed all planets in the universe?

Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness.

Thanks.

Here are the questions again.

It seems these questions have become a nightmare for you. Are you afraid of the dark?

Come now, there's no bogey-man just because Nepa has taken light. Daddy is here, you are safe. Don't be afraid, answer the questions.

jayriginal: I did. That its not acceptable to you doesnt mean anything but that.


Ah, I see your edit.

I did not run away from nothing. The position is really simple. You want to force issues but you must play by rules. If you do, I will engage you.

Answer my questions mate. Can't be that hard. You're making it look hard.

The questions were about planets and finger prints and I have shown in my long quotes above where I made the relevant arguments backing up those conclusions. That is why I said you know very well that those statements are argumentative inferences. Anything else is dishonesty.

Read my posts: the substantive arguments are everywhere: as quoted above.

Just answer the questions if you can. Simple.

Don't make this another long embarrassment where you refuse when called out on simple things abeg.

jayriginal: But I addressed them didnt I ?

At the very least, today, I dismissed of the fingerprint example in relation to the compositional fallacy.

Nah mate. Not even a scratch. You simply blatantly ran from the direct questions offered. But I leave it to readers to arrive at their conclusions.

frosbel: In memory of him, not pretending that the wine turns to blood and the bread turns to flesh. Like I said, I have taken the wine and bread countless times and it never turned into blood or flesh.

If you have had a different experience please let me know.

Thanks,

Ah, not only does Chukwudi's clan say this, they also say that the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine. Laughable.

Anyway that is not to say that I do not agree with alot of what Chukwudi says re the bible. I do.

PhysicsQED: Just for the record, I don't have any dislike of Newton. The man was one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. Even two thousand years from now, whenever anyone is compiling a list of the greatest thinkers who ever lived, he would still make the top 5 in the lists of most people that are scientifically literate. Also, quantum mechanics is not really the basis (certainly not mine, anyway) for rejecting the old Newtonian view of time. Perhaps you meant to say relativity. Even Leibniz, Newton's contemporary and a man almost as brilliant as Newton, rejected the Newtonian view of time, as did Ernst Mach in his own time, but it would take Einstein to really replace it.

Einstein's use of the word "time", as I said earlier, has NOTHING to do with real time.

Deep Sight: Can you tell me if it is an assumption or a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe will have some gravitational pull about them.

Can you tell me whether we have observed all planets in the universe.

If I say to you that planets have a gravitational pull about them - is that an assumption, or is it a valid statement arising from what we have seen about planets?



Following from the example of planets and gravity above, so long as the singularity is matter, we can draw the same valid statements regarding causality.

Glad! Later!

Deep Sight: Now another excellent example just occured to me as to why Mr. Jayriginal's position on the issue of "assumptions" and proof for the cause and effect notion, is so horribly horribly wrong.As frighteningly illogical as Jayriginal can be, I will be shocked if even he can deny this very clear example puts his position to death.

The example I wish to give is that of fingerprints. It is accepted scientific knowledge that no two humans have identical finger prints - that fingerprints are all unique. This is completely accepted in science such that fingerprint evidence is used in criminal matters as binding real evidence.

And yet, there has never been a time in history when all the fingerprints of all human beings have ALL been analysed so as to conclude that there are in fact no two identical fingerprints.

This puts paid to Jayriginal's notion that assuming the law of cause and effect on a cosmic scale is a compositional fallacy:-

Because the simple reality is that that which has been observed is that no two people have the same finger prints. Going with Jayriginal's argument, any person can sit back and say that this well known scientfic fact is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy: because the whole of humanity has not been observed - nor can ever be: because even if every person on the planet today has his fingerprints analysed, it will be impossible to analyse the finger prints of the millions of people that have lived and died or the billions more yet to be born. As such, there will NEVER be a time when the whole of humanity will have had their fingerprints analysed so as to ground the fact that no two fingerprints can EVER be the same.

Nonetheless: the simple truth is that in that which we observe as true of human anatomy: no two finger prints have been observed to be the same. We thus have valid grounds for considering it true and correct to say that it is indeed true that finger prints are unique.

Now, here is the core and central point: the issue of proof - if someone were to come along asking questions about the validity of the notion that finger prints are unique - ON WHOM WOULD THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE TO SHOW THAT FINGER PRINTS ARE OR ARE NOT UNIQUE?

The simple fact is that since in our common observation, finger prints as far as we know are indeed unique to each person, if any person will claim the contrary, or even say that such is a mere assumption, or does not necessarily apply to all humans, or even question the uniqueness of finger prints, then clearly, THAT person will have the burden of proof for shewing the reasons for his doubts - ALL he will have to do is to [b]show just one single example of two humans with the same finger prints, and the matter will be closed forever.

How reasonable would it be for him to refuse to show such an example AND THEN contend that the well known unique nature of finger prints is a mere assumption AND THEN insist that since we have not seen all finger prints, the statement that finger prints are unique is a COMPOSITIONAL FALLACY - and wait for it - on top of all that, when we say to him that "as far as we know, finger prints are unique" - he reverts with saying that since that is only "as far as we know," then the statement that finger prints are unique is an argument from ignorance!

Does this make sense to anybody?

Now this is the terrifying illogic which Jayriginal has repeatedly stated with regard to the applicability of the law of cause and effect for material phenomena. Mind you, in the case of the law of cause and effect, it is far worse because cause and effect is far more intrinsic to material reality than any thing about finger prints. I also gave him an example about whether or not we have observed all the planets in the universe. Both these examples absolutely show the nonsense he is talking when he says that it is a mere assumption that the universe is caused.

More importanly, they show how awfully misplaced his understanding of the terms "argument from ignorance" and "compositional fallacy" are. He does not realize that in the very s.illy way that he reads these terms, they can be applied to say that ANY statement whatsoever, is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy - or an argument from ignorance. To the extent that I have not seen all cats in the world, and no one has, it can also be said to be a mere assumption or compositional fallacy that cats have four legs. Or an argument from ignorance, as he says.

Infact, his good friend Idehn, would by his own arguments, say that a cat with five legs is natural, since it can occur.

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. Arise and greet absurdity itself.

Deep Sight: Lol. Did anyone notice this joke? Plain to the reasonable man ? Plain to the reasonable man ? ? Plain to the reasonable man? ? ?

Lol. So Jayriginal, it honestly misses you that this is what I have been screaming myself hoarse about. That these things are self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. The uniqueness of fingerprints is plain to the reasonable man because no two persons have been seen with the exact same prints, ever. The validity of cause and effect is even more self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. As such it is not that these very self-evident precepts have to be proved - rather - if anyone questions them, then he needs to disprove them - because they are self evident and plain to the reasonable man.

Oya, go ahead and say that cause and effect is NOT plain to the reasonable man. In fact, that one, I double - dare you.

Can anyone say that the law of cause and effect has to be proved and explained to a reasonable man - in that - it is as yet unproven or unexplained ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Is it not the case that it is rather already well proven - and needs to be disproven by anyone who questions it?

In fact, i throw a challenge. I contend that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that has ever been as adamantly and repeatedly proven in our reality, as the law of cause and effect. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON AT ALL. Infact, EVERY PROVEN PHENOMENON is proven with reference to, and by the law of cause and effect. Nothing is proven without reference to that basic precept. NOTHING. I challenge Jayriginal to mention ONE such thing. Just ONE.

But watch it: he will not: he will say that he has no need to produce examples! Lol! Unbelievable chap!

I have explained previously to Jayriginal that the entirety of science itself, is an inquiry into causality. I honestly don't know how such a basic fact could elude him in his notions about "cause and effect being a mere assumption." I might re phrase it by equally saying that there would be no such thing as science or scientific inquiry, but for the fact of cause and effect. ALL science rests on cause and effect. ALL.

Cause and effect being proven at cosmic scales is a fact because the cosmos consists of matter: and as such we know that since causality operates in reference to matter, a material universe must operate same. This is the very same way in which we can legitimately and logically infer that all planets must have a gravitational pull, even when we have not seen them all: because we know the properties of planets and the laws necessary to keep them suspended in space.

I honestly cannot believe such nonsense. Especially when packaged with nonsensical and presumptuous arrogance. I am well known as a most unserious person - otherwise I would not be responding to such piffle. More serious minds than mine would simply smile and ignore this trash.

Set out extensively already. Can't repeat myself.

joe4christ: But be sincere to yourself, even if that's the case but
atleast it made tje world a better place, imagine the
human blood sacrifices that were being practiced
prior to the coming of christianity

And Christianity does not show blood sacrifice? What is the teaching of remission of sins through Christ's death, if not blood sacrifice?

What were all the sacrifices in the Old Testament.

The question is does'nt it surprise you all how
christianity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ penatrated
every rook and cranny of the world without the use of
force or weapon of war for defense and coerssion?

Chei, you fit lie o. Christianity was propagated without weapons of war and coercion?

Lol. You must be a joker.

A food for thought for those who are reasonable
enough!!!

Again, who speaks English like this? They need to use coercion to coerce you into proper English.

A food for thought for all atheists and believers alike

Who on earth speaks English in the manner of the bold?

jayriginal: You need to set out the arguments. I wouldnt want to be a meddlesome interloper.

Done already. . . . exhaustively. . . . but if you choose to be escapist, no wahala. Like I said, I write not for you but for the third party reader. I am confident that third party readers will draw their conclusions appropriately.

So. . . . .Enjoy!

Enjoy - - - ->

Deep Sight: You know very well that those statements are in fact argumentative inferences from observation.

Any honest participant knows the truth about my above quote.

Enjoy.

jayriginal: Oh no.
They are statements and that is all. Its not a cop out, it is cold logic. A statement is not an argument.

Lol. I see you cannot answer the questions - - - > as I predicted.

I am happy to leave things at that. Third party readers will draw their conclusions.

Off to dinner. Good evening.

jayriginal: But I did didnt I ?

Look at my response. Its embedded.

Briefly, one can not answer yes or no to those questions because a statement itself is either true or false. Those are all statements. Fallacies come in by virtue of reasoning. In other words your reasons for making those statements. Not unless you go about making statements and expecting people to take them at face value.

Please don't run away from simple questions sir. You know very well that those statements are in fact argumentative inferences from observation. So please do not cop out. Simple answers won't break your back. I ask these questions very deliberately.

Thanks again.

Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you.

I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers.

Finger Prints.

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique?

4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence?

Planets

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

4. Have we observed all planets in the universe?

Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness.

Thanks.

THESE are the questions i would like yes or no answers to: or reasons why you can't give yes or no answers.

Thanks again.

What you miss is that comparing apples for apples is not a compositional fallacy. If I see that metal melts when subjected to heat, I can conclude that greater metal will melt when subjected to greater heat. This is apples for apples. You mis-understand the argumentative terms you use. Similarly making conclusions based on observed phenomena is not arguing from ignorance. Quite the reverse actually. As such you goof the entire argument.

But to make it simple and obvious, please don't be a coward: just attempt the questions I set out on a yes or no basis: else give reasons why you can't do that.

Thank you Sir.

^^^ Can you just answer the specific questions I put to you in Yes or no terms - or is that impossible?

If impossible, why?

wirinet: I honestly do not know the series you are talking about. I hardly watch T.V. If you tell me the series, the station and the time, I would look out for it.

My views of Jesus was as a result of studies I did way back at the University, when I was researching on comparative religion. Abraham brought one God, Moses brought laws and Jesus brought socialism

Ok. I see. There was a wonderful series on History Channel talking about how much of a revolutionary activist Jesus was against the norms of his time. It was nice, but I don't know when it will show again.

wirinet: Christianity (teachings of Christ) was supposed to be a social, economic and spiritual revolution. before Christ, philosophy of life centred around exploitative capitalism and despotic monarchy - both socially and religiously. God was at the apex of the herarchy, then you had a pyramid of priest in order of importance until you get to the common man at the base of the pyramid. So for the common man to reach God, he has to go through his local priest or religious leader, who takes his prayers to higher authorities until it gets to the supreme priest who then takes your supplications to God. The governments was also modeled in this way. To reach Caesar, you have to pass through a pyramid of representatives. That was how the pharisees and saduccees were structured.

But Christ's revolutionary teachings knocked down the structure, he teached that you do not need any intermediary to connect to God, that as far as God is concerned, no one is closer to God and everybody is at the same level.

This was a revolutionary teaching never seen before in the history of the world. The religious leaders were in an uproar for fear of losing power, privilege and control. The political leaders were afraid of such revolutionary thinking entering the political sphere: something had to be done to maintain the status quo. The new movement was first brutally suppressed, but when the revolution seemed to powerful to contain, Rome decided to modify, assimilate and adopt it, but in a control manner. Gradually they were able to kill the Christ revolution and build a new pyramid of new heirarchies. This became the new template for the Christian religion. The pope, bishop or G.O is said to be closest to God, while those under him derives authority for the head, while the masses at the base of the pyramid needs to go through the heirachy to get to the G.O to be able to reach God.

That is why I call Christianity the first socialist revolution that never was.

You watched that series on Jesus this weekend, didnt you?

plaetton: Yeah.
Jesus, the intermittent and eternal windshield wiper, always wiping away sins and absolving christians of personal responsibility.
Jesus, the ultimate unlimited, platinum, get-out-of-jail card.

Again, talk about moral ambiguity for a group who claim be inheritors and possessors of highest morality!

And it is actually a VERY dangerous teaching because it leads many Christians to fail to recognize the importance of personal responsibility for their actions and deeds!

Pastor AIO: Funny, after some months of growing, learning, and reflections, I find myself coming closer to Justcool's position. While I wouldn't quite say that German people are spiritually superior to others, I would say that they are CULTURALLY superior to some others. But no, that doesn't really convey what I mean. I would say rather that German culture is Younger, more vigorous than the other european cultures which are older and more decrepit. I do think that there is a connection between culture and a people's spiritual condition. I also believe that cultures go through a process whereby they start of young and full of vigour and creativity and then end up bankrupt of meaning and impetus after they become old. (I believe a lot of west african cultures are in that decrepit stage and have been for a few centuries).

I believe the key is not genetic but cultural and that it is culture that shapes a People and not their genes.

The very things that I said that seemed to be an attack on the German manner are actually products of that youthfulness. The brashness, the competitiveness etc. Other writers had noticed it before. I believe Nietzsche referred to it a lot. (at least in my understanding of Nietzsche. )

And secondly let me add that this notion of a youthful culture actually contradicts Justcool's notion - which is that of the most developed culture. That presupposes advanced cultural age of some sort of the other.

Pastor AIO: Funny, after some months of growing, learning, and reflections, I find myself coming closer to Justcool's position. While I wouldn't quite say that German people are spiritually superior to others, I would say that they are CULTURALLY superior to some others. But no, that doesn't really convey what I mean. I would say rather that German culture is Younger, more vigorous than the other european cultures which are older and more decrepit. I do think that there is a connection between culture and a people's spiritual condition. I also believe that cultures go through a process whereby they start of young and full of vigour and creativity and then end up bankrupt of meaning and impetus after they become old. (I believe a lot of west african cultures are in that decrepit stage and have been for a few centuries).

I believe the key is not genetic but cultural and that it is culture that shapes a People and not their genes.

The very things that I said that seemed to be an attack on the German manner are actually products of that youthfulness. The brashness, the competitiveness etc. Other writers had noticed it before. I believe Nietzsche referred to it a lot. (at least in my understanding of Nietzsche. )

Please sha remember as you make this statement, the distinction you earlier made between Germany as a nation today and Germanic Peoples as a whole. . . . . . . who are not exactly culturally "young". . . . .

Again, my conscience remains pepertually troubled by the memory of this thread.

Justcool, given your assertions on this thread, would you equally say that the "notion" behind something such as apartheid, was a "noble prompting".

Was the notion behind segregation in the US also a "noble prompting?"

Ah, for once, I am full with thehomer on this issue o.

Nobody can become "good", "forgiven" or "blameless" merely by accepting "Jesus" as his "personal lord and saviour" No one. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jesus himself said so. It cannot happen.

This touches on the issues in "Succinctly Anony" and so i think we should do that phone recording and post here sooner rather than later.