₦airaland Forum

logicboy: 1) You can feel free with arguing with hard evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Religion and intelligence do not go hand in hand. It is not to say that all religious people are idiots. It is just saying that you are less likely to believe in God if you are of a higer IQ.

You need to understand that believing in God is not the same thing as being Religious. Alot of people who believe in God are entirely non-religious.

It is false to say that a higher IQ creates a greater likelihood of being an atheist.

Obama is not a perfect example of intelligence. Many others went to harvard and became president. Bush did and was he smart? Obama is smart but not your best example

What has Havard got to do with this? Why are you shying away by introducing Havard or even the presidency. I mentioned neither. I mentioned only a man, Barack Obama, and his faith. By your own attestation, you had said that no creationist can be intelligent: that was your statement, was it not? Barack is a creationist, and you admit he is very intelligent indeed: so your initial boast simply has been put to sleep, period.

2) Are you saying that the scientists who understand the big bang are not thinking when they choose to be atheists?

Yes.

And by the way, there is no scientist on this planet who understands the big b.ang. Knowledge about it is scanty, and still very much being researched.

As for the dark matter and big bang mumbo jumbo, can you show me a scientist that will say that it proves creationism or God?

You are getting distracted by something, is there a se.xy secretary in your office strutting about? Lol, I never mentioned these. I simply drew your attention to the fact that scientifically, it is proven that life only comes from pre existing life. That is very solidly scientifically proven. Suppositions to the contrary are not proven: they are speculations. This renders the position of the theist in line with proven science.

Thus, atheism is unscientific.

PS: Is Israel also 'politically' in North America?

logicboy: 1)Timeless or beyond time are both unnatural.

I dont agree, but let us leave that as it is a distraction. Semantics may be getting in the way.

All living things die in time.

All physical living things, yes.

If God is timeless, then he doesnt age. Therefore he must be inanimate. It is unlikely that an inanimate thing is an intelligent designer

God is timeless. God is not material or physical and as such your presupposition does not work with regard to God.

2)What is God? A definition that all can agree on is "some being that created the earth/universe". Now refer to number 1

Good, and neither goodness/perfection or omnipotence are required to sustain such a definition, are they?

You speak about processes such as photosynthesis, adaptation, etc. That misses the point because the question of God's existence is about how the matter and energy that led to these processes exist in the first place? Do they magically pop out of nothingness? Is that scientific?

When you say that religion has an invesrse relationship to intelligence, I think thats is a presumption, and a high-handed one at that. I disagree: Geniuses the world over are often deeply religious people. I mean you cannot look at people of outstanding accomplishment globally and think that the fact that they are religious renders them less intelligent. Its a fallacy. Very soon you will be telling us that Barack Obama is less intelligent on account that he is a person of religious faith?

Atheism is NOT scientific. The fact that many scientists may be atheists does nothing to make atheism scientific. Infact, as I said earlier, atheism is anti-thetical to every known scientific canon. Scientific laws thoroughly negate the premises of atheism. As far as science is concerned, the laws of motion, laws of cause and effect, all tie up with the experiments of Loius Pasteur which show, up till date, that life only comes from pre-existing life

Arguing the contrary will amount to toeing the long discreditted perspective of spontaenous generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Might I add, all succeeding theories about the generation of first life in a pre-biotic soup, have yet to be proven. Until the day such is replicated in a laboratory, you must quit the dribble about "science" supporting atheism. Not that such a replication would disprove the existence of God, because the path from unicellular organism to human being is a path that is treacherous for the scientist.

As such, atheism is indeed eminently unscientific.

logicboy: How can God be natural? Is existing beyon time natural?

Pardon my hairsplitting here, but "existing beyond time" is one thing, and being timeless and eternal is another. How is the latter unnatural, can you tell me? Is eternity unnatural, suoernatural, or just a constant?

It is a constant, and I see nothing unnatural or supernatural therein.

Do you?

What are you talking about the brain? Have you not seen a human brain? Are you questioning the existence of a brain? I'm confused

I mean that the mathematical improbability of the existence of something like a human brain, far exceeds the standards of proof in probabilistic calculations, that scientists usually require to make their conclusions.

Philosophy? How about this- the world is not perfect and therefore a god that created the earth is imperfect. An imperfect being is not omnipotent

You are too jumpy. You need to settle down and understand these discourses properly. It seems to me atheism is an exciting new discovery for you. Take it a step at a time bro.

I say this because you need to first be precise about what God is. Then you need to be clear about the minimum attributes that render such an element "God." There is no need to pick dispensable attributes which are not core to the question of its existence only, and then based on such, declare that it does not exist. To be simple, what I mean is that even if you prove that God is not good, that does not necessarily negate the existence of God.

As such, your argument of omnipotence is simply not central to the question of existence strictly.[/quote]

logicboy: 1) What about crusaders? Warriors of God? Executioner or God? Blashpemy laws to execute for insulting God? Why are you in denial?

Nothing to do with God. Greed, Power and empire building are your answers.

3) America is a religious country with 83% religious people while in the National academy of Science has 72.2% atheists. Explain that

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/08/25/science-academy-godless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity

Scientists don't exist only in the United States, do they? Anyhow that is actually beside the point. You sought to show that "converting" more atheists is a good thing. How does your statistic show that to be a good thing? Are the scientists who are atheist, by that reason alone, better people and better human beings than their theist compatriots?

logicboy: God is supernatural.

That's your assumption. I say to you that God is natural. In fact, I say to you that there is nothing supernatural in existence anywhere. Oya, ride with that.

There is no way to scientifically prove God exist. No way.

The mathematical standards in terms of probable proof which are accepted in mainstream science as proof in terms of quantification of probabilities are the same standards that are outrightly rejected in terms of the calculation of the probability of the existence of something like the human brain alone.

That ought to be food for thought for you, Kind, noble, lofty and gentle sir.

Science can not also prove that there is no God. However, it is in the same way that you can not prove that Bigfoot doesnt exist.

Do not make a caricature of theistic propositions. Bigfoot is just that. The God proposition is altogether serious, sober and reasonable: it states that a pre-existent causative element necessarily triggered this reality. Comparaing such a serious philosophical notion to big foot is just big mischeif.

logicboy: A theist has one more reason to murder than an atheist. God.

This is false. God has never been a reason for anybody's acts of murder. Greed and power in the name of religion rather are.

What is open minded discussion/criticism? You theists can claim that anything is blasphemy. Try and discuss slavery in the bible/koran which is factual with theists and you would get 3 sets of people;

a) religious people who will discuss the matter
b) religious people who will call you a blashpeming idiot
c) religious people that will murder you

Reflecting on this only shows that the common denominator (religion) is not the problem. If it were, why do you have category A in your above?

Why are most respected scientists atheists?

Don't make general claims, produce statistics. Besides if most scientists in Norway for example are agnostic, that would largely be because most of the population is agnostic anyway. Nothing special there.

^ ^ ^ Can you show me one single piece of "modern scientific knowledge" which shows you, "logicboy" that God does not exist?

logicboy: Like an arrogant douchebag,

Slow down on the heavy words there.

you didnt ask about the parameters of winning. What do I consider as winning?

-making religious people have doubts and critically think about their religion

Atheism does not do this. It rather makes many religionists retreat further and deeper into their faith. The fundamental premise of atheism is a notion that mosts theists will never take seriously, and quite right so.

What rather acheives the above is not atheism, but healthy, open minded criticism which is definitely not militantly or evangelically atheist.

-making more atheists from religious people

How is this a good thing?

-Making better arguments than theists.

I say with firm certitude to you sir: that there is not one single atheistic argument that rhymes with common sense or accords with science.

Any person who thinks that debates between atheistic positions and theistic positions are about "winning" is a very sorry soul. Such a soul has yet to ponder the poignance of its existence in the first place.

As a dear atheist friend of mine on this forum said [Jayriginal], God cannot be argued into or out of existence. If it exists, no amount of arguments will kill it. If it does not exist, no amount of arguments will create it.

Pastor AIO: Because there are an infinite number of gradations between one pitch and another. A Continuum in fact.

and secondly, because there are an infinite number of gradations of time between one moment and another. A continuum in fact.

Good boy.

And does this tell us anything about this reality in which we live?

logicboy: You are a natural born cheerleader if you think a creationist is intelligent

Please do get off your high horse. There is no need to make such sweeping assumptions as this. Your comment suggests that no person who leans towards creationism posesses the attribute of intelligence. History says you are wrong: teh vast majority of the biggest and brightest brains that have graced this planet have been people who believed in God. Indeed most scientific knowledge has been advanced by similar people.

You should not think that beleiving in God makes any person fo.olish. It does not.

trent9002: @deepsight, I didnt assert that the universe was eternal, I was illustrating the fallacy of God being eternal. The non material pre existence cause you mentioned, that's just circular reasoning. The cycle continues, "Who caused Nonmaterial P.E.C" "x caused it". Therefore that non material cause is not eternal, One of the qualities of God is Eternity, Therefore that force cannot be God.

It may have missed you, the implication of the word "non-material." That word connotes an intangible element. Intangibility is a core attribute of self-existent elements and self-existence denotes eternity.

As such, such a cause would be self-existent and eternal.

That is what God is.

Why the big bang occured is cos the entropy of the system increased. 2nd law of thermodynamics explains that. Everything moves from a state of orderliness to disorderliness. That disorderliness resulted to the big bang. You've made no point

And why not prior sir?

The entropy of what system? Please do not peddle falsehoods. Nobody on this planet knows exactly what the pre-b.ang singularity was, or comprised of. Do not attempt to make it appear as though this is known. It remains unknown, and scientists only speculate.

The latest technology which may permit scientists to say with a measure of certainty what transpired prior to, or at the moment of the ba.ng, is only still being developed.

Why is it possible to create an infinite amount of different musical tunes?

plaetton: Seems I'm late for this party.

@Deepsight: First of all, nothing can be expressed as a mathematical equation in the form of empty hypersets with functions which represent potentialities. This may not make much sense to non-mathematicians, but if you consider that mathematics is the true language of creation and that all matter can be defined or understood to express themselves via repeating mathematical constants.
Now regarding your crystal water phenomenom,it just confirms my own person theory that all is electromagnetic energy. water is just another medium through which energy can move.It is not surprising at all, that energy leaves an imprint on a medium, especially one that is denser than air.
If you agree with my much earlier theory that the brain is a super conductor, then it makes perfect sense for thoughts emanating from the brain to behave ,affect and imprint itself on a dense medium such as water.

That thoughts affect water is nothing new. it has been known for ages. I think it is just beginning to recieve scientific attention. i'm sure you are familar with what religious people call "Holy water". Holy water is water that has peculiar properties.It has long been shown that what is refered to as holy water is actually H3O, whereas ordianry water is H2O. So Holy water is ionized water. inonized by the addition of one hydrogen atom. Since hydrogen has only one electron,one hydrogen atom = one electron. therefore, if you bombard a water molecule with electrons, it is likely to capture one electron to become H3O, which would in turn, alter its molecular structure and its physical structural dynamics.

Since prayer or meditation is form of concentrated thought projection, one can, in theory, ionize or hydrogenize a glass or botle of water(super conductors have no physical bounderies).
Sound, verbal or musical ,on the other hand, are syncronized waves . again, that they affect a dense meduim such as water, should not be surprising.

This man! You get big brain sha! Your perspective is always interesting!

But what has all this have to do with a belief in a creator? Again, all i see are just the ceaseless interactions of cause and effect.B[b][/b][b][/b]

It could have significance with respect to a creator in at least two ways.

1. The implication of a non-material element or thing having imprints of design, on material things - think!

2. The implication of over-acrching meaning within this reality.

^ No you didn't. You only mentioned the take of some scientist, and then averred that he is "highly qualified". That says exactly nothing sir.

^ Consciousness, perhaps.

logicboy: There is no single proof of creation. No single proof of God.

Oh no, none at all;, except that astonishing super-computer within your head which enables you to write, right?

That thing is sufficient proof of the existence of a causative intelligence behind this reality which we apprehend: it seals the discourse: to all but the willfully blind materialist - and might I add, unscientific atheist.

No single proof that prayer is effective.

This discussion is about the existence of God, and not about the efficacy of prayer. There are theists who do not believe in prayer. Most Deists don't.

Tell me why I should listen to creationism. Science and evolution have proof/evidence on its side.

Every known scientific canon leans towards creationism.

trent9002: This is really weird arguing how the universe came into existed. Science does not claim to know everything. This is called The First Curse Argument. Just to summarise it, According to theists, everything has a cause, so if we keep going back the chain of causes, there is a first cause, and that is God. This is a really old argument, It has already been disproved. When we say God caused the universe, why do we stop there? Isnt that double standard? Following the theory, The next question should be, "What caused God?" "X caused God" who caused X?" "Y caused X"... The chain is infinite. So you have no proof to say God is the first cause . Is it really harder to believe that the Universe (Which we all see with our eyes. And can be confirmed to exist) has no beginning than That "God" (whom we know sod all about and cant even confirm his exist) has no beginning? If we can call anything "God", Its the universe. And we are the makers of our destiny, Life is just a short glimpse of this awesome universe. Live it to the full, so that in yrs to come, People will remember and admire you, just like we admire Einstein and co, If there's anything like Immortality, THIS is it. Dont waste your precious short life thinking and dreaming of another life that doesnt exist, while you ignore the one you had. Make something with the one you have, help build the world we can see. Dont be scared of what happens after. Its logical for humans to get scared of death. Death isnt that scary. We've been dead for eternity b4 our births, why get scared of the one after?

Fair enough. But I'd disagree on the universe being eternal in the past. Current scientific thinking does not say so. As far as we know, the universe commenced from the point of a singularity at a finite determinable point in the past.

Thus the question of the universe being self-existent is ruled out.

If the universe is not self-existent, then it must have a cause or trigger.

And since the universe is material, then that cause or trigger could not itself be matter, as no effect is its own cause.

As such, it is logical to presuppose a non-material pre-existent cause.

This is what is called God.

trent9002: Lol, @BlackTeeth, Its called Evolution. Go read your Biology texts. You seem to forget this our planet is just a tiny speck in the sea ofthe universe. Life is just an accident of Nature. I just joined Nairaland recently. This is my first post. I thought I was the only one, I'm glad there are other atheists in this religion infested country. For those Christians/Muslims etc who are scared of using their brains. Here are a few sites that might help you realise that your Big sky daddy is Imaginary. Www.ebonmusings.com (my favorite) www.godisimaginary.com, www.godlessgeeks.com www.jesusneverexisted.com, www.whygodwonthealamputees.com, www.evilbible.com and lots more. As for JC and his 12 merrymen, he is almost a semi historical character. Regardless of his fame, there isnt any contemporary evidence that he even existed. The only data we have are the orthodox gospels and gnostic gospels. It might surprise you that the genuine Pauline epistles give no evidence of a historical Jesus. Except the fake ones identified. I'm sorry, but ur bible is not as infallible s your pastors tell you. Archaelogical evidence has revealed a lot of things, For example. 1. Your King David and his son were nothing more than Tribal chiefs, They weren't as the bible claimed they were. 2. The book of Daniel has been proved a forgery, written during the Macabbean period, this means the prophecies therein as fake. Its just like me writing a book and prophesying the death of say, Yar'Adua and Independence of Nigeria. Other fake books are James, Esther, 2 Peter, Jude etc. 3. During the time of Jesus, there was never a town called Nazareth. 4. The gospels we have contradict themselves so much, who saw Jesus first?, How many women were at the tomb? How many years did his ministry last? 5. This doesnt need to be mentioned, But Genesis is just a mess, Like every reasonable person knows, Creationism is a joke. 6. The bible is full of contradictions, check out www.1001biblecontradictions.com, + why would a benevolent-omnipotent God create this mess of a world, while he keeps frying almost literally every human being that dies in his big fire. All because of one fruit. If I were given Omnipotency for just one day, I'm sure I'll do a better work than your sky daddy Is he that lazy?. Why would an all loving God create a baby suffering from Cancer right from birth? Isnt that wickedness? The truth is that Christianity is a lucky religion, If Constantine hadnt fancied it, By now, We might not even know about it. Or it would be a minor religion. Why doesnt God pull those stunts it claimed to perform in the bible? Why show show yourselves to scientific primitive men? No matter what your T.B joshua might show you, its a record. No supernatural event has ever occured under control with no scientific explanation, (hy wont God heal an amputee?. As for Islam, I dont know much about it, But I've never believed it.

I will urge you to separate the religious notions of God, which can be quite ridiculous, from the logical and philosophical construct of the necessary existence of an Eternal Primordial Cause: which is what God really is.

logicboy: You were the one that ignorantly claimed that science could not explain these things;

"Can science explain how humans have thoughts, emotions, and conscienceness? No it can't yet we know these thing to exist"

Scientist have mapped out parts of the brain that carry out some thought processes. Because you are ignorant, you say science cant explain it and God exists.

Science can not explain everything but it has done a great job explaining most part of our lives compared to christianity or religion.

It surprises me that atheists always say this. The fact that a thing has a scientific explanation is no reason to suppose it uncreated. Everything, anyhow, must needs have a scientifc explanation. That is because everything is natural. That is no reason to suppose material nature to be its own cause.

thehomer: Okay.
Lets begin this conversation with this question. Why do you believe in your God?

Note that which I crossed out above. There is no "my" God or "your" God. There is God. God IS.

I believe in God because reason, science, intuition, and the gift of higher sentience lend me so to do.

Martian: Is atheism supposed to be scientific? What does unbelief in gods and the supernatural have to do with science? Do you need science not to believe in goongonka?

Is belief itself based on science?

Atheism is unscientific because science itself is an inquiry into causality. Any notion therefore, that suggests or presupposes an uncaused material universe must naturally be considered unscientific.

And in this: I speak of a primordial causative element of whatever description or remit.

The laws of motion, cause and effect, mathematics, genetics, biology and a host of other scientific disciplines render it indubitable: that a primordial intelligence necessarily exists.

^ ^ ^ Please stop the copy and paste and simply give us your own take on the nothingness issue. You don't want to do that simply because you know your own take is the same as mine: you think its nonsense. Dont be afraid to speak your mind.

You should read again my comments to martian about the fact that he addresses the real concept of nothingness with a spook quantum concept that has nothing to do with the issue raised by the real concept. Its that simple.

Atheism is indeed rather ill considered: not to mention hopelessly unscientific.

^^^

wirinet: Deepsight

We have been through this your argument of nothingness Time and time again and you keep bringing up the same argument. In modern day physics, there is nothing like nothingness. What we have is interactions of vibrations ( or energies) of different frequencies. So in effect we are talking about energy fields. When you say nothingness are you saying we have regions of the universe that contain
no matter, energy, gravitational field, magnetic field, etc. Remember gravitational, magnetic and electrical fields extends to infinity. There is no portion of the universe that contain nothingness.

Exactly, and therefore for this reason no scientist should address the philosophical question "why something instead of nothing" with an apeal to a "nothingness" which is not really nothing - but infact something!

If they must address that question, they must address ot from the proper point of view of exactly what "nothingness" refers to.

About the possibility of mind being able to control matter, I am of the school of though that it might be a possibility because I believe that thought is a form of energy, and energy interacts with matter(another form of energy), but I don't see how that proves the existence of god(s). more research in that direction is required to understand the mind better. When I say mind, I am not talking about some spiritual or mystical thing, I am talking about the totality of the neurological processes that manifests as consciousness.

Makes sense.

However dont you think that shutting out the possibility of non-material parts of man/ reality, is in itself unduly dogmatic?

Martian - you said -

Nothingness should be nothing at all, but the "nothingness" of QM is just like my earlier example of information conservation in black hole horizons, they sound interesting but I don't have a working understanding of QM to fully decipher the calculations involved.

^ ^ ^ No thanks: cannot accept! Very simple reason - and you should reflect on it -

1. The discussion that this stems from is a discussion in which the riddle: why something instead of nothing was posed. Indeed the so called scientist in his writings addressed himself to this question.

2. Thus the "nothing" which is at issue is a state of the existence of absolute nothingness.

3. The "nothing" which the Quantum physict refers to is not really "nothing" in terms of the argument about something from nothing which he addresses himself to.

As such, it is clinically mis-footed and represents an astonishing failure to grasp the basic precept which he is attempting to discuss.

Its nonsense, of the highest order.

Grasp the essential point: the Quantum physicist when he speaks about "nothing" is not referring to real "nothingness". As such he should never make the si.lly error of applying his "nothing" to a determination regarding the question - "why something instead of nothing?" - because that question addresses the real "nothingness".

You can then imagine how unfathomably si.lly it is to then address the real notion of nothingness and then argue it through with a quantum notion by saying that nothingness is unstable. In fact, I dunk any pretense to politeness: its id.iocy.

STOP WORSHIPPING SCIENTISTS.

Martian: But you don't think your thoughts affecting water crystals by telepathy is quackery and daftness.

That could not be the case because you yourself acceded that thought based technology is already being developed.

You know I wasn't talking about elementary law.

But the definition of nothingness is elementary.

Stop this worship of scientists please.

^ Do you think "nothingness" should be described as having such properties?

If it should, should it be called "nothingness" - ESPECIALLY considering that we are discussing the enigma of existence or NON-existence of anything at all? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Martian: Maybe because you don't really understand his quantum physics based definition oif "nothingness". I mean, I find String Theory, M theory and talks about dimensions fascinating but farfetched. At the same time, they actually put some work into the formulations and calculations of these theories that I know i won't fully grasp unless I start studying physics and the likes, so calling their theories a joke without the needed expertise is kind of arrogant. "my opinion"

example, when Leonard Susskind told Stephen Hawking that he was wrong, he provided proof through his work and his answer, to me, was even more farfetched than hawkings but I didn't call it a joke. I saw Hawking's assistant say he spent more than 6 months figuring out susskind's work and HE WAS A PHD candidate in theoretical physics. So if you are to call the "nothingness" thing a joke, your reasons have to be based on quantum physics and not your personal bias on what is possible.

Anyway, Susskind's theory is about information being preserved in the event horizon of a blackhole. Imagine me, with my two classes of Business Law calling you, A LAWYER, a joker about an area of law I'm not even familiar with.

Sorry I cannot accept this because they also delved into certain ket concepts in philosophy. The plain fact is that we are speaking about the existence of "something" as opposed to "nothing". Nobody can or should b.ull.sh.it us on that score. Nothingness is just that: nothingness: and no amount of psuedo-scientific jargon or nobel prizes will ever change that. The description of nothingness as "unstable" must win the all time prize for the greatest piece of quackery and d.aftness in science. You know that, Jayriginal knows that, but both of you will shrink from saying it because you worship scientists just as ardently as the Christian worships Jesus.

And of course, you don't need to be a lawyer to challenge a lawyer on many elementary pieces of law which everybody knows. If I told you that there is no possible offence in any kind of homicide, you should reject that even if I have won a million nobel prizes in law: and yet such a statement is not even nearly as untenable as the statement about "nothingness" being "unstable." Its arrant nonsense, and we must call it out for what it is.

Martian: I'll scoff because it's magical thinking. Thought computing is due to research and the results are already being seen in Brain Computer Interface(BCI) and artificial prosthetics while the water crystal BS is akin to magic and prayer. It's not the same priciple because the real scientific one requires tools while the pseudoscience just requires thoughts and prayers.When humans modify nature and do seemlingly impossible things, tools are always used in order to bring the thoughts to fruition, I'm yet to see any tangible thing being done by just thinking or prayer and this water crystal business is obviously bunk. You can control nature with your thoughts, BUT it only happens in X-Men and other Marvel Comics.

This is strange. You accept that thoughts can affect matter and that there is even technology being developed for such. Does it not occur to you that where technology is developed for anything, then such a thing is inherently possible under the laws of nature first? If it could be done through a tool, what then is so "magical" about it being done under naturally existing processes?

At the minimum, the mere fact that technology is being developed for such should trim your scoffing.