₦airaland Forum

Martian:
@Deepsight
Also, YOU DON'T have to be omniscient to say with confidence that Zeus, Yahweh, Allah and co are figments of some people's imaginations.

See comment in post above.

Do you need to be omniscient to say baphomet doesn't exist? Seriously, it's a man with hooves and a goats head!!!

What if its a representation of an other-worldly form?

I trust you are not as dense as Joagbaje who believes EVERYTHING and ANYTHING!

Come now, cut the fella some slack, He's not all bad. Also i don't think it is correct to say that he believes everything.

Martian:
Concerning every god(oludumare,yahweh/allah, aura Mazda, Zeus, chukwu, quetzacoatl,FSM), there is evidence of absence for all of them. The simple fact that various cultures believe in different gods, the lack of evidence for any of these gods, the fact that they become myth when we don't believe in them anymore,the nonsensical stories told about them, the fact that they all bear very human characteristics and how none of them are universally accepted shows they don't exist. Evidence of absence. Is there any evidence that Zeus ever existed, or Yahweh?

Well my view is that there is a common perception of the existence of a creative agent - and it is only natural that different cultures, tribes and traditions would all name that creative agent differently, and certainly embellish it with their lores, myths and legends. This multi-cultural embellisment does nothing to take away the essential fact that all of these peoples apprehended the existence of a supreme being - however ridiculously they may have then proceeded to embellish and describe it.

And so long as they had that common belief, then it still stands as correct to state that a belief in God is indeed mankind's default position.

Concerning the "uncaused cause" or if I may humor you, "Ultimate purpose", we don't know that yet because knowledge increases, one step at a time . e.g mankind went from being sure that the earth was the center of the universe( supported by the same religious philosophy that said "god" made the universe ), then Galileo said no, the sun was the center,then Hubble used his telescope to show that the milky way is not the universe and that they are other galaxies and so on. The ancients built pyramids( some say for religious purposes) with the amount of knowledge they had at that time, human knowledge has since accumulated and now we have a vehicle as big as a vw van on it's way to mars and humans will land on mars this century. The Romans looked at Jupiter and their thoughts turned to "god" while we sent probes inside Jupiter's atmosphere.  My point is, we have to be patient and let knowledge build instead of jumping to conclusions based on purely theistic views about the cause of the universe.
That's how we can arrive at the truth about this cause or purpose, we have to work towards it by figuring out how the universe works and what else is out there. We don't resort to the same old arguments based on sentiments and human hubris.

Currently there is absence of evidence to determine this cause because it's undetectable. If we had a guideline about what to look for then we could have a conversation, but when this cause can't even be defined in a coherent way with testable characteristics, we can conclude that there is absence of evidence, so the conversation becomes futile.
Gracias, amigo.

I agree with this. I will only urge you to recognise and remember that science is not the only source of knowledge. You may have surprising insights just looking within you.

plaetton:
I am repeating this again. Cause and des[/b]ign are no the same thing and should not be used interchangeably.
There bone of contention is design , not cause. That unknown conditons the big ban.g has never been in dispute. What is in dispute, and [b]needs to be proven, is that Big Daddy designed and purposefully lit the fuse .

I don't like your reference to "Big Daddy" - It tends to turn the serious issue at stake into some sort of santa claus fantasy. I do not advance arguments for teh existence of a grey bearded old man sitting in the clouds - nor does justcool - and for this reason, please let's try to understand exactly what each party has in mind more carefully.

To answer your question, yes, it is true that cause and design are not the same thing - however I already told you that people legitimately see hallmarks of design within what has been caused - and this suggests a mind at work.

In this, i should remind you that the first thing that people observe closely is themselves and their own bodies. I am certain it woould be a bit of a stretch for even you to deny that a human body has strong suggestions of being very well designed for purpose. Now, i do not seek to insist that that is the case - understand carefully - i merely seek to say that there is enough to suggest that - and that as such, it is understandable that people consider it designed.

However i really have to ask you exactly what you refer to as God. Sure not Santa Claus?

wirinet:
On this issue of burden of proof of a negative assertion being on the person disputing the negative due to lack of evidence, I disagree with you.

Diagreement is the lifeblood of discussion: It is great to hear from you again, my brother.

Now lets analyze your core argument on the burden of proof lying on atheists to prove the negative existence of a (one) God. Your core arguments is that because of the perception of complexity within the universe, therefore that complexity must have been a result of a more complex phenomenon (which you consider to be an intelligent God)

I am quite certain that this is not the argument I have made anywhere in this thread.

Finally when you talk about intelligent design, I would need you to give me your definition of the term. Because according to my understanding, intelligence is a function of the neo-cortex, enabling an organism to make decisions critical to its survival. And Homo Sapiens Sapiens (intelligent man) is the zenith of intelligence as far as we know, so if you have any other definition please lets have it. Same for design, design is an intelligent process of combining already existing simple materials in a variety of ways to bring about a new complex material, object or process for the comfort, convenience, or pleasure of the designer. A design is not necessarily created, that is the job of technicians and most designs never become reality.

I think you are arguing something different. Do you agree that -

1. Any one with a novel claim bears the burden of proving it

2. Anyone advancing ideas against a previously held default belief must prove same - even if the default belief is false.

3. Prima facie - on the surface of things - something like the human brain appears to have hallmarks of deep design. It appears so. It seems so - even if it is not in fact so. Do you agree that the burden of proof shifts to the side of he who argues against what appears or seems to be the case - even if such is in fact not the case?

Martian:
You just love to extrapolate your limited worldview on the every human, don’t you?

So do you.

Belief in god is not a default position because no one is born believing in any god until they get indoctrinated into one religion or the other.

You are surely being disingenuous. Religious ideas about God are an answer to a question - and everyone is born with the question. The question is the origin of our existence, and virtually every child on his own will have this question. Religious ideas are simply the answer that society has evolved to that universal question. The existence of that question is commonsensical because things are not observed to simply pop into existence. This is why indeed it is correct and true that belief in an external cause which is called God is indeed and has always been mankind'd default position.

Buddhism’sand other religious philosophies’ default position is that god doesn’t exist.

This is false. Pure Buddhism is silent on God - it does not state any such thing as that God does not exist. As for the many shades of adulterated buddhism, they have since become replete with diverse god-figures.

Secondly, what percentage of humanity hold this non-belief?

God or gods absolutely DO NOT exist.

Omniscience is required to make this claim - and I am assuming that like most of us, you have not even ventured outsid ethe speck of a dot called the earth, and yet - you are so omniscient as to know what exists and what "absolutely does not exist" - in the entire universe.

But for me to think like that, I would have to adopt the anthropocentric view that the earth and humanity are special. I don’t.

Nor do I. I actually believe there are many other worlds out there. Can't prove that though, but i am terribly certain of it.

The materials and conditions necessary for life are abundant in the “known” universe( because physicists haven’t even figured everything out yet in the observable universe),

Its quite shocking that you cannot see your own contradictions. In one breath you authouritatively assert that gods absoluletly do not exist - never mind that you need to be omniscient to make such a statement. And in another breath you admit that the conditions necessary for life are abundant in the universe and that "physicists haven’t even figured everything out yet in the observable universe" . . . .if this is indeed so, then you must accept that you cannot make such categorical statements about what exists and what does not. If by your admission the conditions necessary for life abound in the universe, then it makes sense to think that there may be life elsewhere in the universe if the conditions are right - and you cannot second-guess what life forms, can you? Gods could be extra-terrestials, for example.

It is simply incoherent to state that something does not exist in the entire universe or beyond, and at the same time state that you do not know all the things that exist. Of course, if you do not know all the things that exist, then you are in no position to categorically declare what may or may not exist.

You are quite funny. Get a grip.

If this “god” is sentient, what makes you think a human like yourself can ever understand a mind that can create subatomic particles, use them for nuclear fussion, create elements inside of those stars and them blow them and spread those elements all over the universe.

I make no such presumption: i speak that such a mind exists and that it is possible to glean sic fundamentals about it only.

If “god” is real, what makes you think such a powerful being would be concerned about one specie, on a minuscle planet, orbiting a small star, at the outer fringes of a relatively small galaxy. What?

Not concern in the manner that you think. In a way, i believe that everything that exists is a subset or part of the whole that is God. As such everything  that happens is a minute self-expression of Infinite Reality - which is what God is.

Ultimate cause doesn't mean ultimate purpose because ultimate purpose suggests sentience. Before you can say there is a purpose, you have to identify the cause and I don't think you're are capable of doing that unless you have some expertise in cosmology or maybe tools like the hubble space telescope. And we know you dont.

I locate it within my consciousness, but i sense that is a matter for another day.

Ever since the first person said the word god, another person has been there to call BULLSH#T!!! Human fraility, indoctrination and ignorance are the reasons why so many believe the former.
The greek gods who were so real to hellenic civilization also had people who didn’t’ believe in them.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Diagoras_of_Melos
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Theodorus_the_Atheist
Zeus was real to the greeks, just like yahweh/god/allah is real to theists/deists today, but now we call Zeus a myth. What makes you think your ideas are different from theirs.

None of this changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of humanity have always conceived of a supreme being as the cause of all things.

Galileo refuted a claim that was testable . Even Galileo was wrong because the sun is not the center of the universe. Notwithstanding, you are the one making an extraordinary claim about the creator of the universe from your vantage point on this tiny planet, without any proof.

The issue about the sun being the centre of the universe if irrelevant for this analogy. What is relevant is that he had a more correct idea than the default position (of the sun orbitting the earth) and still had to prove it.

The way i see it, your claim that the universe is uncreated is far more extra-ordinary than a claim that it is created because an uncreated universe is quite simply magic. You don't believe in magic, do you? Aha.

You expect everyone to agree with you that there must be a god based on an argument from ignorance. That's what your arguments always boil down too.
Deep Sight- Mr. argumentum ad ignorantiam

Arguments are free, and there is no onligation to accept a propounded argument. You are entitled to your opinion - just as I am to mine - and in my opinion, you are gravely misguided in this matter. It's just my opinion though.

Atheism doesn’t need to prove anything, it’s just a rejection of superstitious and unfounded claims by people whose  ideas about the "divine" can never be tested or falsified.

Is the law of cause and effect a superstition? Is the law of motion a superstition? Is the law of thermodynamics a superstition? Do be serious, please. All of these laws which are grounded in science strongly suggest that which is anyway commonsensical - that an external, pre-existent and powerful factor caused the universe to be. That factor is what i call God. You may call it bashibazook. But please whatever you do, just do away with the notion that anyone here is arguing about a big daddy sitting in the clouds. Absolutely not.

plaetton:
Though humankind has made giant strides in scientific and technological advancement, our mental and spiritual advancement still lags far behind.

I am really gobsmacked. Do you believe in the spiritual? What does it mean for you. Whence does it arise?

plaetton:
My kind of post:
Here are my 2 cents.

1st:
Bending space- time is not as complicated as it might seem. You see, time and space only appear linear from our 3 dimension perspective. It has been theorized that time and space are like folded fabrics. If you want to go from one end of the fabric to another inch by inch, you can, but it is shorter to just to move across the folds to different areas.

Are you sure this is not a fantasy? Please review the short discussion here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-362859.0.html#msg5064522

If we want to travel long distances in space, we simply jump into another dimension where space and time are frozen(so to speak), and just skip to our desired destination without spending any time , traversing any distance , or using any energy in our three dimensional domain.

Makes sense - I'd sooner accept this than the idea of bending spacetime. . . .

Theoretically, there are exotic super- conducting particles that have the properties to defy gravity as well as distort space and time. They are called mono-atomic particles of the rare and heavy elements such as iridium, paladium, gold.etc.Experiments have been successfully conducted and patents already taken for these exotic materials and the processes. At certain temperatures, these materials are said to weigh zero on a scale. Yes zero. This implies that these materials are able to move their mass into another dimension and back, basically tearing into space and time.

Very interesting.

2nd:
The human brain tissue, under microscopic examination is said to be made of billions of super-conducting crystals made of the same heavy elements previously mentioned. If so, we therefore have within our brain, the potential to transcend space and time into other dimensions. We already do a little of that,albeit unconsciously, when we dream. Our dreams always seem distorted and meaningless because our brain , when confronted with the unknown, tryies to use its database of memories in an attempt to interpret its encounters in other dimensions.
Thought travels faster than light. If we knew how to , we can focus our thoughts and chase after and catch up with relections of light from the past. In Tibetan legends, it is said that the Avatars, during deep meditations,can project thoughts into the past towards the reflected lights stored in the hall of records called the Akashic records.
So if properly tuned to the right frequency or octave, we can project our thoughts beyond space and time.

Even more interesting; I love the way you bring a scientific spin to spiritual / extra-dimensional experiences. I am quite surprised actually. I never expected you to countenance the spiritual. I will have to study you more closely.

Aha.

plaetton:
You have made good logical arguments , but I still do not except it. Its like saying "If you dont believe what I believe, then you owe me an explanation". I dont feel it should be so.

I hope you realize that the very same could be said about your position: to wit - you are saying to the Theist - "If you dont believe what I believe, then you owe me an explanation".

plaetton:
Also calling something a default position is arbitrary. In light of the amount of knowledge we have amassed so far, your position cannot be deemed to be the default position. Today, the opposite seems to be the case.

In this instance there is no question of arbitrariness. For within human experience, complex systems fit for specific purpose are designed by intelligence - that is the standard human experience with respect to things that humans themselves create. Thus, by creating complex systems fit for specific purpose themselves, and having to apply their intelligence to such processes, humans derive a personal experience which tells them that such complex systems fit for specific purposes require intelligence to be assembled. This is one of the very basic reasons that belief in God is a very default position of human beings - because it tallies with their own personal experience of having to apply intelligence to create complex systems for specific functionalities.

Now, when human beings have, despite their application of intelligence, never been able even in the modern age to create something as sensationally fit for purpose as a single white blood cell - not to speak of the super-computing prowess of the human brain - it then becomes a tall order to expect the very same humans to believe that such things did not have intelligent input. This is why the generality of humans believe in a superveneing and intelligent cause or creator - because it only seems commonsensical to them. . . thus if you will take an opinion poll of all humans in the world, you will find probably nine theists for every atheist. . . or something of the sort. It is thus slam on correct to state that belief in God is indeed mankind's default position - and that is not an arbitrary assessment in the least.

I will go so far as to also inform you that even a great many so called atheists also share this belief - because alot of them are not pure atheists - who totally reject any notion of God. A good number are actually what i call the "anti-religion atheist" - who rejects religion because he recognizes its absurdities - and thereby imagines himself an atheist. Such a person is simply non-religious and closer to being agnostic. I have found famed atheists even on this forum here and there hinting that they accept the notion of a creator and creation - but assert that it is beyond proof. Such are not pure atheists. They still retain the commonsensical notion of a supervening cause. The pure atheist is he who - asserts positively and adamantly that God or gods absolutely DO NOT exist - never mind that omniscience is required to assert that.

Also, the undisputed rationale of causes and effects, and the laws of motion give human beings to believe that indeed there is an ultimate cause and that such a cause is imbued with purpose and intelligence. This has been, and still remains the default belief of the vast majority of mankind up till the present day. Indeed, the opposite thought is only a recent entry into the thinking of humans, and certainly is held by only a small minority of mankind.

There is thus every reason to state that belief in God is indeed mankind's default position.

And the argument remains that any person who disputes a default position - whether or not the default position is wrong or right -  bears the burden of proof. Tell me if you dispute this principle.

Also i gave you the example of Galileo Galilei - who advanced ideas against the wrong default positions held at his time. Although the default position was wrong, would you say that Galileo did not bear the burden of proving his novel assertions?

That helps me rephrase it in another way that also makes sense - any person with a novel claim bears the burden of proving it, and this you CANNOT disagree with! - And certainly atheism is novel amongst humanity - for theism it always was from time immemorial! This alone surely closes the argument - novel claims must be proved - even if they be true and correct - such as Galileo's!

^ I think you are derailing the thread with your comments. This thread is not about proving the existence of God. It is about the question as to where the burden of proof should lie.

^ Fair enough, but back to the topic - do you accept the argument that every person attacking a default position bears the burden of proof - whether or not the default position is wrong or right?

Sigh. Doctor's summation: Case is worse than previously thought.

plaetton:
@Deepsight:
Thank you.
With regards to this character, You have just said all that has been on my mind . This liitle man has nothing to offer this forum than his juvenile hit and run sniper attacks on individuals rather the issues. He seems to be very bitter , perhaps as a result of the hostage drama his mind is curently enmeshed in.
We should pity him.

Pity indeed. The poor fella is saddled with such a terrible weight of bitterness and insecurity which stems from the unfortunate fact that he knows his beliefs are ludicruous.

This is not a problem actually - we all have this or that ludicruous belief. What really is a problem is the malice and petty individual bile that he is able to habour for months and years. Poof!

It seems that every response these days is only "for the record". . . lol, when will you tire of your cloak and dagger approach to debating any issue. If you are not scampering off to produce irrelevant posts on other subjects, or 'exposing' this or that unsalutary aspect of one's personality, you are certainly not to be seen ever advancing any logical construct whatsoever. For a while I have tarried, in the hope that as time hurries past beneath the bridge, it would bear away with it some of the scarcely veiled bitterness that seems to envelope you for no other reason than the fact that your dogma is shown up as being nothing more elevated than the most puerile pagan fantasy.

Ghosts impregnating women, Jewish men who are almighty God, ritual blood sacrifices for eternal life, and the like. Yuck! - It is not difficult to see just why you would become so touchy and bitter over these things - as it cannot be easy living a whole life saddled with the spectre of a ludicruous worldview hanging over one's head. Do accept my heartfelt sympathies, dear friend.

Now, since everything is not really a response - but merely "for the record", let me clear my throat and regugitate a few things also "for the record"! - - -

The term "Christological Usage" is nothing but the most vacant special pleading. It seeks to assert that the term "Monogenes" as applied to Christ has a different and special meaning than its normal meaning. This is nothing short of hypocrisy, and ordinarily any self-respecting person should be ashamed to peddle such an argument.

Indeed this is the argument advanced in the article I cited, and I did show exactly why it's such an infantile attempt to escape the obvious: namely - the fact that Christ was begotten.

There are four instances of the usage of that exact word in the NT which i cited already - and in every instance it was used with reference to the single begotten child of human parents -

-   Luke 7: 12 “And when he drew near to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, a monogenes in relation to his mother, and she [was] a widow, and many people of the city [were] with her.”

-   Luke 9:38 “And behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, ‘Teacher, I am begging you to look at my son, because he is monogenes to me.’ ”

-   Luke 8:42 “And behold, [there was] a man who was named Jairus, and he was ruler of the synagogue.  And he, having fallen at the feet of Jesus, was exhorting him to enter into his house, because he had a monogenes daughter about twelve years [old], and she was dying.”

-   Hebrews 11:17. “In faith, Abraham, when he was tested offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up the monogenes (he) to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

Thus it is head-splittingly amazing to see Trinitarians argue that the term meant anything else - even introducing a most vacant special pleading to evade the obvious meaning of the term.

There is no reason to suppose that the term means something else when applied to Christ in relation to God - it refers to Christ as the only begottent son of God. I had explained this much already in the prior thread, saying -

Monogenes is a cumulative derivative from the Greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’.

The word Monogenes comprises two components as stated above.

Monos (mon'-os) is defined as: sole or single - alone, only.

The Second component is -genos (ghen’-os) which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In greek the derivatice root of the term Monogenes is ‘ginomai’ - which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is thus accurately rendered as ‘only begotten’.

As such it is obvious and simple what the term refers to. As I said before, truth is always simple.

It is, on the other hand, always easy to detect a desperate lie - for in seeking to subvert the meaning of the term "monogenes" simply to escape the obvious fact that Christ was begotten, the Trinitarian then resorts to such hocus pocus as "Christological Usage" and "Consubstantiality" - in which it is very obvious to see the desperate and fraudulent weaving which is so irksome.

Friend, if you have an argument to make, make it straight up like a man. Cease these ridiculous references to my famed antecedents, these "only for the record" cop outs and the like. It all simply makes you appear rather effeminate. Grow up.

The fact remains that Christ is begotten - a monogenes of his father - and as such had a beginning. God has no beginning. Period.

Enigma:
The same poster has tried this same tack in the past and was educated with helpful advice.

One of the pieces of advice for the poster was to read up on "consubstantiality" --- starting from his beloved Wikipedia.

No doubt, Sat Maharaji and Olumba Olumba Obu also have this consubstantiality.

Truth is simple. Lies need to be defended with ever more lies up till the point of absurdity.

Consubstantiality indeed.

You needn't defend your worship of a late Jewish Rabbi. You also needn't defend the blasphemy of rendering same late Jewsih Rabbi as almighty God. There are people who worship stones and dead pieces of wood. You are at least worshipping a human being - so you surely are in much better standing than many.

Enigma:
Addendum: meanwhile as for the credibility of the poster, this is someone who says {"maybe"} the biological father of Jesus Christ was a Roman soldier who "quaffed" Mary his mother! https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-802388.0.html#msg9546224

Very clever, very "intellectual", very honest!

There is much more that you can source on this forum to dismember any pretences to credibility that I might have, I am sure - but I am equally certain that it is vastly superior to address issues and arguments, and not personalities. It comes across as rather petty, if your best response is always to scamper off to produce some other post which you imagine might be derisory.

Having said that, as far as "intellectual" and "clever" is concerned, I am also certain that you know very well just how clever it sounds to announce belief in pregnancies by the agency of ghosts!

This man sef.

______________________________________________________
Monogenēs - Etymology

The term monogenēs is derived from the adjective monos (“single,” “only,” “unique,”) and the verbal substantive genos (“race,” “kind,” “species”). Based on that information it can be suggested that monogenēs means “only one of its kind,” “unique.”1 This has become the most common rendering of the term in English. However, since genos is related to the verb ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”), monogenēs could also mean “only begotten.” The question is whether or not the use of genos always expresses the verbal etymological idea of origin or birth.

Before we arrive at any conclusion we should examine some additional evidence. First, we should acknowledge that there are cases in Greek literature in which monogenēs seems to be connected to the idea of generation. This is particularly the case when the term is applied to humans or to offspring. For instance, in cases where it is stated that someone is the “only” child of a specific couple, monogenēs could mean “only child born to someone.”

- Christ as Monogenēs: Proper Translation and
Theological Significance
Ángel Manuel Rodríguez

____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________

The foregoing is the first part of a Christian attempt to elucidate the term – monogenēs.

What can be directly gleaned from it is that the term means “only one of its kind” – and that since genos is related to the verb ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”), monogenēs could therefore refer to “only begotten.”

THE ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY A TRINITARIAN, and yet even he could not deny that - "there are cases in Greek literature in which monogenēs seems to be connected to the idea of generation."

Given that the use is obvious, they then have to resort to pranks - The attempt is made to suggest that “only begotten” was no longer the interpretation of this word at the time that the Greek was written. This is a FALSE and FRAUDULENT attempt.

If that is the case it would be eminently bizarre that in ALL of the following scripture the SAME term was used and it ALWAYS referred to humanbeings who were begotten –

- Luke 7: 12 “And when he drew near to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, a monogenes in relation to his mother, and she [was] a widow, and many people of the city [were] with her.”

- Luke 9:38 “And behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, ‘Teacher, I am begging you to look at my son, because he ismonogenes to me.’ ”

- Luke 8:42 “And behold, [there was] a man who was named Jairus, and he was ruler of the synagogue. And he, having fallen at the feet of Jesus, was exhorting him to enter into his house, because he had a monogenes daughter about twelve years [old], and she was dying.”

- Hebrews 11:17. “In faith, Abraham, when he was tested offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up the monogenes (he) to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

If in ALL of the foregoing texts which are ALL New Testament writings in Greek, the same term was used to refer to humans WHO WERE BEGOTTEN BY THEIR PARENTS AND SINGULAR.

So it’s just AMAZING that the Trinitarian would desperately try to give a different colouration to that word once it is applied to Jesus. – because as we can see from the above: the word was used to refer to single BEGOTTEN children.

It is CLEAR that Jesus was begotten and these lies will NOT change the obvious.

Now the clincher is this: God has no beginning. If Jesus, was begotten, then he had a beginning, and as therefore clearly not God.

God is eternal, intangible and transcendent. There is this no human being that can or should be called God.

Enigma:
^^ Talk of Jesus being "upgraded to god" is the talk of fools and of deliberate liars and twisters.

Even God the Father referred to Jesus the Son as God ----- looooong before the Council of Nicaea.


Hebrews 1:8

Really people need to set their sights on God and cease to be distracted by imagining any human beings to be God. Such imaginations are not different or superior to the notions of Sat Guru Maharaji, Olumba Olumba Obu, and the like, being the Almighty God.

Let us for once drop these distractions.

plaetton:
@Deepsight:
A balckhole swallowing a star system can hardly pass as a design purpose. LOL.

I am quite surprised that you would say this. What proper system does not have tools for the disposal and regeneration of energy?

Disease shows the imperfections of random mutations rather than design flaws.

Diesease is a manifestation of the intereaction of various elements in unhealthy directions. The universe being a massive compound will produce varied interactions. A close study of such interactions will reveal quite alot to the discerning eye. Indeed I will go so far as to say that much observed diesease is really a part of the function of the whole - in the same way as the the relationship between predator and prey may balance an ecosystem.

We have on many occasions debated on this issue of first cause and design. It seems we rehash the same arguments over and ever.

To be sincere, as between yourself and myself, we have barely yet scratched the surface of the many different arguments that exist regarding this matter. We have only addressed superficials thus far, and not yet gone in depth.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-377521.0.html

For example, on reflecting deeply on this issue, I arrived at certain ideas that may or may not be plausible.
Rather than seeing the creator and the universe as two distinct things, what if there has always been one singularity? What if that inteligent, purposeful singularity simply exploded and dispered itselt throughout the void of space 14billion years ago? So, although now existing in countless bits, that singularity executes its will and purpose through the tiny bits of itself which we call matter?. That would account for what you see as the inherent design and purpose on the one hand , and aslo account for the big b.ang, evolution , and natural selection, on the other hand.

You have touched on something here. Something important. A key illumination. Where you say -

"what if there has always been one singularity? What if that inteligent, purposeful singularity simply exploded and dispered itself"

This is actually almost exactly my apprehension of the God Factor - with one key difference only - it is as youdescribed, but simply not physical. It is an intangible and eternal singularity which is the cynosure of infinite reality.

I do not expect most thiests to buy this notion because it would eat into their idea of a personal loving god who stands aside from his creation and dictates his will.
What do you think.?

Having often tended to describe myself as deist - which is a hue of Theist - I do very much subcribe to this description, only with the caveat stated above: i do not regard the source of all things to be the physical pre-big b.ang singularity of this universe alone: i rather regard it to be a super singularity beyond this universe emcompassing all of reality. And that is what I understand to be God.

plaetton:
The belief in juju is quite similar to the belief in a designer. Quite a number of people believe in juju and to them, the existence of juju is just commonsensical . They see the invisible hand of juju(intelligent design?) in every phenomena and in every event, much like the apostles of intelligent design.

Do you seriously regard the notion of Intelligent Design to be equated with juju?

Is that your perception of intelligent design?

That is quite sad.

I would have thought quite the reverse - namely that notions of universes spontaenously, and purposelessly springing into existence are exactly what is reminiscent of juju. . . and not intelligent design - which squares with what we as humans do in creating things. . . .

thehomer:
Actually, the other party too bears a burden of proof which is to also show that the process was guided.

What do you mean when you say that natural selection doesn't account for the origin of species? What you need to understand is that natural selection acts with random mutation and other processes.

Chance is a part of the process not the entire process which is why natural selection is called natural selection.

The elements of chance act at various levels. One at the level of the gene, another at the level of the environment.

Dawkins met his burden of proof and this is why we have the theory of evolution.

@ thehomer, it appears to me that you have severely misconceievd everything i wrote.

Please go back to the post you were responding to and study it again before responding. You have absolutely not understood even what was being discussed. Not even a hair's breath of it, sorry.

Further, i was discussing the postulations of Richard Dawkins. . . and I am not aware that he is responsible for the Theory of Evolution. . .

plaetton:
You seen use the words "cause " and "design" interchangably. They do not mean the same. Cause does not necessarity imply design.

Not at all my brother. All things as we know them in this universe have a cause. What I do however assert to you is that the design evident in such things as human brains also evinces a purpose. 

Causes can be random or chance events. When the conditions are right, events occur. That is cause. The right conditions of temperature, wind spead and direction, atmospheric pressure and humidity causes or ignites a thunderstorm, therefore no one takes responsibility for igniting a thunderstorm.Design implies ulterior motive or purpose.

I hope it is not lost on you that what is at issue is the cause of ALL things that we know exist as per this universe? It is thus insufficient for you to refer to conditions such as temperature, wind, pressure, etc - given that the question at play here is the root cause of ALL observed phenomena?

What is the root cause of all observed phenomena, Plaetton?

I say to you that the laws of motion and the law of thermodynamics give us to know that something external to the universe must invarably have triggered the universe.

I also say to you that elements within the universe evince purpose.

How will you bounce the ball?

Sure, the big ba.ng had a cause,

Okay. . . .

but to say that pre-existent intelligent entity lit the fuse is a stretch of the imaginagion.

Why is it a stretch of the imagination?

You speak of (1) pre-existent and (2) intelligent  - - - > entity

This is not a stretch of the imagination. It actually squares with logic as:

1. You accept that the universe had a cause

2. Nothing finite or material can be its own cause and as such the universe could not be its own cause:

3. Causes precede effects

4. Ergo, the pre-existence of the cause is indubitable

5. The scale of the universe evidences the fact that the pre-existent cause must have also been a massively powerful factor.

6. Ergo, the root cause is definitely pre-existent and powerful - two elements already of what God is said to be understood as.

7. The development of improbable things within the universe - such as beings with highly complex super-machines for consciousness. . .is also highly suggestive of the root cause bearing the imprint of universal intelligence.

I cannot see how this is far fetched imagination, even if you do not agree with it.

This is where the burden of proof squarely lies.

The burden of proof lies with he who challenges a default position - even if the default position is wrong. I gave you the Galileo example. In the case of humanity, the default position has always been a belief in a creator. This default position cuts across all of human history, culture, religions and tribes, and is based on the commonsensical notion of cause.

I say to you that any person challenging the default position must adduce proof - even if the default position is wrong. 

Design implies purpose.

Yes it does. Do you find the idea of a designed and purposeful universe to be ediotic or strange?

The champions of design have never agreed on the purpose.Religion is an attempt to find purpose in the midst of the chaos. Unfortunately, for a long time ,humankind has waged war against itself over what this purpose should be. Still, there has been no agreement.

Virtually ALL religions agree on the core essentials of the purpose.

plaetton:
Be honest ,and agree with me ,that the case for a designer is predicated on faith. ,

Absolutely not: it is rather predicated on common sense; for as I have earlier alluded, no one comes across organs such as the human brain with its astonisghing properties and fails to see hallmarks of design therein. The person who fails to see such is certainly the one operating far outside the accepted boundaries of common sense.

which compels theists to articulate arguments that are just not provable. Where is the evidence? It is long overdue. The respected opinions of Aquinas( a churchman) and Aristotle ( a philosopher) are not considered evidence.

Logical deductions, once sound enough, are certainly evidential in nature: it seems very sad to me that you appear to regard only physical objects as evidence? Now that will indeed be well outside any realm that I will be able to discuss in, and certainly outside the respected realms of philosophy and logic.

Uyi Iredia:
This is not an argument; it is a caricature of theistic arguments.

Indeed: a real caricature it is - and very sad that he would do that, because I doubt that Plaetton can claim to be unaware of the very many advanced and articulate arguments for the existence of God put forward by some of the best minds to have graced this planet.

plaetton:
If anyone claims the exixstence of  something invisisible and undetectable,

God may be invisible, but it is almost disingenuous to say undetectable. Inasmuch as many physical elements are detected only by their effects and not direct observation, it is apt to say that the entire universe is certainly an observed phenomenon which begs for an answer as to its cause - which answer is what the "God Idea" is all about - namely - a pre-existent cause.

This is only commonsensical, and in toe with the laws of motion.

the person must first establish some basic facts about the  claim that can form the basis of debate or refutation of such claim.

A basic fact which we cannot deny is that everything finite has a cause - and the laws of motion give us to know that nothing begins to move without a triggering factor - and the universe did begin to expand from a point. This is a basic fact on which we ground the idea of a prime mover - or pre-existent cause - which is what God is said to be.

No such facts have emerged to advance the notion of design ,

Yes, except the sudden emergence of an entire universe from a dot, right?

As i said prior - so long as something is a default position - as the existence of God has been with every tradition of mankind from time immemorial - he who attacks the default position must bring in his lunch pack some snacks of proof to offer the enzymes of demented belief.

jayriginal:
Since we are talking about the burden of proof, how do you ask someone to prove his reasons for rejecting a claim ?
The claim was there in the first place. Then the rejection. So where does the burden of proof lie ? In the claim or in the rejection ?

Actually you have it up side down. The hallmarks of design are there in the first instance. Then the rejection. So where does the burden of proof lie?

You need to understand carefully that I am not herein advancing an argument for the existence of God. In summary, I am advancing an argument that in light of the existence of what appear to be hallmarks of very advanced design, the burden of negation the existence of design should rest with him who states so.

To put it very simply. Even if something is actually a mirage - namely - it only appears to be there, seemingly so - - -my point is that so long as it appears or seems so - the burden of proving the contrary will rest on he who states that that which seems to be the case is in fact not the case.

And just for the records, Plaettons lion analogy is a very good one.

Not at all - Plaeton's analogy is actually an alarmingly bad one - one that fails to grasp the basic precepts of logic at play here - for he gives an example of a thing that is generally not observed as being the case and seeks to use it to disprove a thing that is generally observed to be the case - causation.

Yes you did provide the link, but extracting one line from it is not right.

You herein suggest that I am fraudulent with the extraction of the quote whereas that is not the case - for the purpose that I extracted the quote was not, as some thought, to prove intelligent design - but rather simply to ask the question - on the basis of accepted statistical improbability - does the burden of proof not thereby shift?

I submit that it does - otherwise Dawkins would have had no need to write a single word to address that very thorny point. He obviously had to show that the seeming improability regardless, there remains no proof of design. Thus you really need to understand precisely that I have not said that his statement proves the existence of God - I have only said, and i do say - that his statement shows that he has a burden of proof.

For where there is an improbability - even if a seeming improbability only - then the greater burden must reside with he who advances that seemingly improbable notion.

Let me give you an example. Galileo Galilei. This fellow could have easily stated that the burden of proof that the earth is orbitted by the sun rests with those who say so. In reality, public perception was wrong, and he was right. He nevertheless recognised and executed his burden of proof because from the Unclad eye, and the vantage point of the general observer - it seemed that indeed the sun was orbiting a stagnant earth . . . that seeming reality thus placed the burden of proving the reverse on he who contended so - and Galileo duly discharged his burden of proof.

Anyway the bottom line is that the original claim is that there is a God, and its not correct to ask those who see no evidence (and thus do not believe) to prove so.

I firmly disagree. The original claim is actually that there is no God - because the default belief was that there must be a God. This has been the default belief of mankind from time immemorial, and he who seeks to rebutt a default position bears the burden of doing so - especially when that default position is backed by the commonsensical notion that things as generally known, do have causes.

Heck! - this gives a fresh and stronger spin to my argument - namely that any person attacking a previously held default position must have the burden of proving that default position wrong.

Bump! For Jayriginal and Plaeton to review. . . . . . .

plaetton:
Any elementary school child should know how snow crystals are formed. that is common and accepted knowledge.

It is important that I repeat to you that which I have told you before: namely that knowing how something is done does not in anyway mean that it was not done by somebody.

Knowledge of how a system works does not translate to knowledge of what brought about the system in the first place. It does not explain why the system exists, and for what purpose. It does not tell us that there is no designer of the system.

Can you tell me what purpose the interesting shapes of snow crystals serves?

jayriginal:
You found it compelling as a result of confirmation bias.

Perhaps I found it compelling because it is indeed common-sensical to think that a thing displaying very complex elements of design and inter-working features is designed? A person who thinks the contrary should be tasked to prove so - simply because it appears like fantasy or witchcraft, to imagine that such a thing springs into existence by itself, just unaided?

And indeed, as bizzare as that idea is, this thread does not dispute the idea. It simply says that since such an idea prima facie appears improbable, then he who asserts it to be as such should prove same.

Improbable things are proved everyday - so this should not be a problem.

Its simple enough a repudiation, until more credible evidence for the existence of God comes to light.

I think its actually a laughable non-starter. The world is teeming with too many elements evincing such particular and staggering design that it is almost disingenous to state that one has seen no evidence of design or a designer.

^^Deep Sight is fond of doing that. I dont know why. Again, like with your brothers argument, you pick what you want and ignore the rest.

Please let's be fair to each other. I provided the link, and you know very well that in that thread I have already addressed fully all the arguments i regard as absurd in the article - so I DID NOT pick and choose - and certainly did not ignore anything - whether or not you agreed with my conclusions.

Also you should note the context in which i sourced that quote - not to dispute the existence of God - but simply to discuss burden of proof.

He who asserts must prove. Only then does the burden shift. Feelings, no matter how deep they are, do not qualify as proof.

I think that he who asserts the more bizzare thing has a greater burden of proof. And one look at the human anatomy (particularly the brain) is enough to convince me that it is more bizzare to regard it as being undesigned, than it is to regard it as designed.