₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: Yup, like the oneness of infinity and a bunch of ancient aliens.

What a farce !

These two great escapes have since become the standard response that dimwits on this forum have adopted when called out on their own absurd statements. Welcome to the club. Enjoy your stay. Hopefully you will find more escapes like such for the future, as these will soon become boring.

Kay 17: No the burden is on you to specifically provide why there is a creation. I'm to show other possibilities. Of which a dot spilling out its content could well be mechanical.

Not at all, you should be the one to show me just how normal it is for universes to be contained in dots, and exactly why such dots dont spill before or after the time at which they spill, but specifically at that time.

Rather, everything about such an occurrence evinces an ACT.

Kay 17: We should note that causality might be exclusive to the universe, as time is said to flow along with the universe into existence.

Thus outside such a framework, causality might not be possible.

Exactly, which is why self-existent things are self existent.

Kay 17: no how is a universe spilled out of a dot? There isn't any extraordinary effort necessary to effect that. It could purely be mechanical.

Could be, would you care to show how, and what triggers such?

thehomer: Which one? Local intent or cosmic intent? The presence of a cycle in no way says that there is a mind running things.

Oh, not where such cosmos emerges unbidden out of a dot, certainly that has implications.

Are you saying that energy is eternal?

But ofcourse. Not as known in this universe though. It transcends this universe only and I speak of the one eternal energy that permeates all things.

What concept of mind are you using?

What else, but the one eternal mmind that is.

Do the presidents of Nigeria and Ghana have independent minds or are they sharing the same mind?

Don't you think that the answer to this question is beyond your materialism. Well the answer is that they are permeated by the one eternal mind that is.

thehomer: I never implied that it was a scientific principle that has a mind neither did I say that you implied the same.

Oh yes you did. Read your post.

Anyway, since you have retracted, no matter.

What makes you say this?

Microscopic life thrives in even greater abundance than complex life forms. As such, given the principle of survival of the fittest, life should have been evolving towards micro-scopic forms and not towards complex forms. Not to speak of towards forms of such stupendous complexity as a human brain, for example.

Can you present a link that explains what you wish to say? The phrase "knowing consciousness" doesn't turn up any relevant meaning on search engines, online dictionaries or online encyclopaedias.
If you cannot, then you simply have to accept that the phrase is simply a word salad unless you actually define it concisely.

Ok, I'll help you a little. You know what the word "consciousness" means, right? Good. So "Knowing consciousness" is that consciousness that is world-aware in that it conceives the world, the universe, and even abstraction, as opposed to such life forms that maybe conscious only, but not knowing in this way: e.g: an earthworm, a goat. . . . (or a goat-minded atheist or religionist. . !)

Causality is a philosophical concept that is used in science but with quantum mechanics, that principle is actually being questioned.

Unsuccessfully, so far.

Disastrously and calamituously, in the attempted case of virtual particles, for example. Failure. Goatish failure.

I hope you realize that the God claim you're making extends beyond the mere philosophical concept of causality. You're also assigned certain attribute(s) to this God.

For the purpose of these discussions we can start with that concept of causality first. And it is not just philosophical - causality is the founding ground of science. Science itself is an inquiry into causality.

Yes, God has other attributes. But if Goatists cannot get past such a fundamental scientific one, we dare not challenge them with more.

Kay 17: There are lots of possibilities. To suggest the existence of a creator god, you will need to explain first why the universe is not just caused but designed.

O that's simple. How do you pack a universe into a dot? And yet that's what we see as the implication of the big ba[i]n[/i]g. That takes some doing.

thehomer: You're making another rather bold claim here. Life may be said to have local intent not some sort of cosmic intent. If you disagree, then I would like to see what sort of intent you're conferring upon life in general. How does the universe we see disclose a mind? This is the core question you're yet to answer.

Oh yes it does, grand cycle that it is, chuff, chuff.

You are being inconsistent.
You've said matter is not eternal in the past and you've also said that what you're referring to as God i.e "the compound of infinite self existent laws" made things out of energy which is physical.

All energies are one energy. There's your answer.

You're also saying that an infinite bunch of laws have a mind.

But of course. They not being laws of man, but self-existent realities that could not but be.

What on earth do you mean? How can laws have a mind? Or are you using a new concept of mind?

There is but one mind. There's your answer.

thehomer: Are you saying that God caused the universe or aren't you?

That, we have always said. That does not mean that causality as a scientific principle is what has a mind.

It is explained by the theory of evolution.

No it is not.

Deep Sight. This isn't the first time that we're having this sort of conversation revolving around the meaning of a phrase. I've shown you before that a phrase can have a different meaning from the words that make it up. If you have a clear idea of what you're referring to, why don't you simply come out and say it? If you think there is a link that explains the meaning of this phrase, by all means, present it.

Indeed, it is not the first time that people such as yourself anf Idehn have ridiculously asserted simple words to suddenly be very difficult or even incomprehensible. I have learnt my lesson. I will not play such daft games with anyone any more. If you are having challenges understanding any words, just consult a dictionary, thank you very much.

As to phrases, I see that you yourself actually compose whole sentences! Surely then, good friend, mere phrases cannot be difficult. If they are, ask a friend or family member around you. Just be careful not to ask another like yourself or Idehn, who will claim not to know the meaning of such simple words.

You have merely asserted that not believing in a God is a deficiency. Can you actually demonstrate this assertion? Saying that is no better to me than saying that a non-belief in Santa Claus is a deficiency.

No, I have asserted that since observed science discloses causality, then it is unscientific to argue the reverse with regard to the material universe. This is what I said is foolish, and yes of course it is eminently and goatishly foolish.

thehomer: My my conception of creation is different from formation. Creation requires a mind while formation doesn't necessarily need one.

Well where you are dealing with an entire universe and life therein, that has intent inscribed upon it - for the simple reason that matter itself is not eternal in the past and as such would have had to definitively come into existence at a point. Again, the form of the resulting universe discloses a mind.

I hope you realize that you've effectively said that the universe is created from something physical.

I will not quibble about this here: having seen Mr. Idehn make a fuss about physical or non-physical, no matter. The point still stands so long as the universe is caused to be by a pre-existent being.

thehomer: Are you then implying that a God doesn't need to have a mind?

It is not my trouble if you cannot see that causality is an observed principle in elementary science, and not a being said to have a mind.

What complex design are you referring to?

That within your brain, for example, or your Central Nervous System, or the inter-play between your organs.

I'm sure you can do better than this or I would take it to mean that you have no idea of what you wish to say.

To be more precise, you should take it that you do not know the meaning of the English words "knowing" and "consciousness". For that, I will suggest you consult a dictionary, as I have found that atheists do not know the meaning of most words, especially when it suits them.

No it isn't but you're yet to show the deficiencies you're referring to because it may be that what you think is a deficiency actually isn't a deficiency.

Oh yes I have but perhaps you need to read again and then also consult a dictionary.

Repeated post.

thehomer: It doesn't have to be created.

O yes it does, because matter, being mutable, cannot be self-existent and as such cannot be eternal in the past.

If you think it was created, what was it created from?

The energy resulting from that which is "the compound of infinite self existent laws" - which is called God.

thehomer: Does this "elementary causality" have a mind?

I did not say any such thing. Please learn to stop your atheistic enthusiasm from preventing you reading properly.

The idea of design in living beings is well explained by the theory of evolution.

Oh no it is not.

Evolution does occur, but by no means explains complex design. Not in the least.

What is this "knowing consciousness"?

It is knowing consciousness.

How on earth does one not accepting the idea of a God make any atheistic worldview deficient? You believe in some God, others don't therefore you think any worldview they adopt is deficient. Yet you do not accept the Christian God. If Christians say (as they do) that this means any worldview you can adopt is severely deficient, how do you respond?

Oh no, I don't want anybody to accept my views necessarily. I do however, ask people that pretend to logic, to adopt logical viewpoints.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

benodic: The reality and Existence of God is a subjective experience and not an objective one.

While I agree that the experience of God is an inward one, I would disagree that it cannot be rationally inferred that there is a pre-existent cause of this reality.

That is why you can never provide any proof on the existence of God to any atheist.

No, the real reason you can never provide proof to the atheist is two fold: the first is their usual goat-like foolishness on the subject, and the second is their gross abuse of science in reaching persistently unscientific conclusions.

I am not even bothered about proving God's existence to anyone. What matters is how your knowledge of God is making you a better person that is of service to all life. If your knowledge of God does not make you a better person then it is an exercise in futility

I agree 100 per cent with this.

Kay 17: Also, why do you suggest the universe is created?

Why would you suggested it to be uncreated?

thehomer: What is the great and profound foolishness in atheism?

The failure to recognise elementary causality as well as the denial of thoroughly obvious elements of design in living beings.

But worst of all, the goat-like obtuseness in failing to recognise knowing consciousness for what it is.

These are spectacularly foolish deficiencies within the atheistic worldview.

jayriginal: You are indeed entitled to your own opinion, no matter how silly.

As you are to yours, no matter how nonsensical.

Such as the possibility of uncaused material things, a single example of which, is beyond you - till tomorrow.

Purist: What if I have no idea what "god" even truly means? I may have heard various versions and vague concepts, and may be at a loss as to what you're actually inquiring when you ask, " Do you believe in God?"

A la Mr. Idehn.

jayriginal: As long as he cannot say "Yes! I believe", he is an atheist. Like I said earlier, an agnostic is one who doesnt yet know he is an atheist (or doesnt want to admit).

I don't know if you are just in the business of seeking to brand anything and everything atheist. There is a clear and lucid distinctinction between atheists and agnostics. It is a real distinction. You know the distinction, so please do not muddy the concepts. I wonder if you are now seeking to join Mr. Idehn in his noble business of deleting words from human language. Has he delegated the task of deleting the word "agnostic" to you?

That is neither here nor there and was addressed in the thread.

No need to fuss: the thread is there for posterity, the meaningless assumptions and bundle of contradictions you served up are there for any to read and see. Such as your argument that relying on the law of cause and effect in making arguments amounts to making assumptions and arguing from ignorance - even when you said you accepted same law. I read the whole thread again yesterday and I was sincerely amused.

There is only a choice between goat-like foolishness and reality.

jayriginal: Uyi, I have addressed that before. Cause and effect doesnt help your case one bit.

Start from here, where Deep Sight and I discuss the Cosmological Argument. He pretty much bases his arguments on 'cause and effect'. https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/5#10375976

And yes, Purist is an atheist because he doesnt believe.

Oh yes, and let us verily recall that you verily shied away from verily mentioning a single verily thing which verily is not known to be caused. . . . . . .

jayriginal: We have touched this more than once.

Let me ask simply. Does an agnostic believe in "God" ?

No long answers please, the question is simple. If you ask an agnostic if he/she believes in 'God' can the person answer with a 'yes' ?

No, but the atheist will answer with a heavy No. The agnostic will neither say yes nor no. He will say he does not know. Herein lies the difference.

^^^^ It is a lamentable and also goat-like contradiction son. Goodnite.

nyameke: what and where is the contradiction

I need to point it out? Funny! You say that one is subject to the other and obeys the other, and yet you insist that both are ALMIGHTY.

That is not a contradiction?

Una sef.

haibe: How else will they explain to you that Jesus was humbling himself despite being in the form of God. O.k when he was accused of making himself God did he say he wasn't? And if he was not God don't you think when he appeared to paul he would have told him he wasn't God.

He said severally that he is not God. You people simple refuse to hear the poor fella on account of a desperation to worship a fellow human being.

Read -

John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, " Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

The words of the Apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

nyameke: The father directs and the son obeys but they are the Almighty because they are one..

What sort of contradiction is this? Do you people think at all before you assimilate gibberish and spew this sort of thing?

Goshen360: What is foolishness in that if he believes that. You are not a Christian, are you?

It is the height of foolishness, and even blasphemy, to regard a fellow human being as almighty God and worship such a fellow human being.

It also shows low self esteem, racial inferiority complex and a goat-like approach to doctrine.

jayriginal: Or being called fools.

Why? There is of course great and profound foolishness in atheism.

As to the Hell thing, why should the atheistr care, given that he is so certain it does not exist? He should merely laugh.

^^^ Beginning of foolishness, if you believe the above.

Good grief. Even giving God a physical definition still makes no head room for this odd chap called Idehn. Magnificent! This has got to be some sort of ill conceived joke.

Well, if people - supposedly scientific people - who are aware of the age of the universe, as opposed to the age of mankind - are willing to say that time and space exist only in the human mind. . . then well - that is just the mother of all absurdities - for in that case, time and space did not exist before creatures came on the scene, and in that case we wonder how the universe existed from the point of the big b.ang.

And yet, people who can spew such gibberish dare mock the religionist as being absurd.

Magnificent.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, then it will be very obvious at that point that he is simply in denial because I think I have bent over backwards enough to accommodate him.[/quote]Bending over is not sufficient. You have to collapse and die. Did you not see me break my spinal chord to give him a definition of God for the purpose of discussing if such exists? I stated that it is "a being said to be the creator of the universe." I cant see any difficult words in that, but knowing him, i went as far as to produce dictionary definitions of the words "being", "creator" and "universe".

Guess what. No deal.

Our good man still says that he is yet to hear a definition which we can discuss. Incredible.

Funny thing is, he ought to know that to be an atheist in the first place, one must have knowledge of the thing that one denies, otherwise there would be no basis for denial in the first place. I cannot say that fairies don't exist without knowing what fairies are said to be. It is based on what I underdstand fairies to be, that I can conclude that such does not exist. This means that for our man to say God does not exist, he must know what we mean by the word "God".

But rather than discuss why God does not exist, he is content to feign ignorance of what the words "creator" and "universe" mean. Its unbelievable. Even Martain said clearly that of course everyone knows that God is said to be the creator of the universe. But our man claims that he does not know this. Even as a definition for purposes of discussion only, he will not allow it. Its incredible, and these are the same people who will call the religionists rigid. Have you ever seen greater rigidity than this?

I even offered that we should use any dictionary definition. No deal.

What to do then?