₦airaland Forum

I hardly have the words to address you.

What is the meaning of what you have written? ? ?

You say atheism has reason as a guiding lamp. That's hoggswollop. What rationality is there in stating that -

1. The world as we see it needed no preceding cause and/ or -

2. That cause could not conceivably be intelligent ? ? ? ? ?

You are very !/xqz"??11*%$£! when you assert that reason defies teh existence of God. Do you know what reason is? Ehn? Ehn? ? ?

Agnosticism is simply a position that declares - "we do not know and it is beyond us to ever know" - now that is a vastly more honest and reasonable response than the atheistic view.

Yes, Maven, Viaro and i are looking into that business. I will be the treasurer.

Viaro my old nemesis friend will make a great Lead Pastor with his vocabulary he will confuse lead the clients congregation into parting with their consultancy fees tithes.

Googler:
2. The oneness of infinity. I like this one: God is one. God is infinite. I can't put it simpler!

Wow, this is the first time on this forum any person has agreed with or seen the absolute simplicity of this description of God! _{Where is Viaro?}

Yes, but it is not always desirable state of mind. Especially a foetus trapped in the belly of a madwoman such as me.

You intrigue me. . .pray elucidate - what do you mean by this?

I dey tight! In fact ehn, the brutal agression wey i dey take chase millions this year no get part 2 o.

I wish you wealth, spiritual and material.

Stay blessed.

Wirinet! Brilliant post as always!

Happppppyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew year!

^^^ Thanks.

Do any of these definitions of God find earth with you -

1. The self conscious compound of all self-existent laws

2. The oneness of infinity

3. The ultimate Reality

4. The singular and primordial uncaused cause of all existence.

- Can you suggest to me a few of the attributes you might believe that God posesses.

Your statement about being a Foetus is profound. That is the ideal state of mind for the earnest seeker.

^^^ Do you mean by this that you are a Freethinker?

Might i ask if you believe in the existence of God. If you do, what do you define God as?

Thanks.

Googler:
Baba Sikira the babalawo can help with instant, raw evidence. Just kidding.

If you mean objective in scientific terms, there are no mechanisms. That is why they are said to be supernatural. They cannot be proved materially although their manifestations can be felt in material world and these are then subject or amenable to different interpretations. There seems to be some agreement that you have to develop your perceptive powers, not intellectual but intuitive, to actually see things for yourself. It is said that people with highly developed spirits see things others can't. That is why people join esoteric schools of thought such as Rosicrucianism, esoteric Christianity (Christian mysticism), sufi (Islamic mysticism), Kaballah (Jewish mysticism), Vajrayana Buddhism, the Fourth Way, Eckancker, Grail Message, etc. There is no doubt that students of followers of these schools gain "experiences" which they believe to be genuine. But there are naysayers who dismiss such experiences as "self-hypnotism".

Might i ask what your personal persuasion is?

I miss him!

Quote from Mavenbox -

No, sir. Elijah did not go to dwell in the place of God's abode. Please try to use a concordance when you study the Bible, so that you can unlock subtle shades of meaning that may be lost in translation. That's what Deep Sight really is, and not speculation.

Here: shâmayim / shâmeh meaning "meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air" is the word used for heaven in 2 Kings 2:11 below
2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

I am sorry to say Maven, but you are being deeply fraudulent with this post.

Unfortunately for you; i do have an exhaustive Bible concordance right in my personal library here in my bedroom.

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

Thus you fail in your attempt to make it appear as though in that specific instance only, the writer was referring to the physical heavens - the clouds.

Go back to your concordance and you will see the reference number H8064 (from your quote i believe we are using the same concordance - Strong's?) - is the same referrence number for ALL references to "heaven" in the Old Testament. Accordingly it is clear that you cannot single out one verse and insist that it refers only to the physical heavens when the same word is the very word used to refer to the spiritual heavens in the Old Testament.

Thus your statement that he did not enter heaven is nothing but your own speculation without an ounce of proof. For me: it is clear that he did rise to a spiritiual "heaven" in the context of that verse for at least two reasons: (1) - What was the need for the "Chariot of fire and horses of fire" if he was merely going into the phjysical heavens? (2) - He was NEVER seen again. Accordingly he had departed the physical world in that instant.

Take time o.

One part of hades, where Jesus and the thief went, is known as paradise, or Abraham's Bosom. The word paradise, is from a Parisian word meaning "park" or "garden".

So there are parks and gardens in hades?

Maven, why are you selling such obviously contrived falsities just to satiate your dogma?

I positively challenge to you produce a single biblical authority for the assertion that paradise is in hades.

This is blatantly false and contrived.

I back up my assertion with the fact that the word “paradise” used by Jesus in reference to the thief on the cross in the concordance refers to a park or garden and is specifically stated to be indicative of a “future place of happiness.” Check the Greek!

FURTHERMORE, AND MOST DAMNING FOR YOU: THIS SAME WORD IS THE WORD USED IN REV 2;7 IN REFERENCE TO THE ETERNAL PARADISE OF GOD WHERE THE TREE OF LIFE RESIDES!

MAVEN IS THE TREE OF LIFE IN HADES? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

However, to start out with a premise you intend to controvert is not (IMO) a good approach.

Good advise, bro, i take it without question.

Let me just say that in discussing God, one cannot escape starting from the presumption of nothingness because the very heart of the cosmological question is how things came into existence - thus you must first look at a premise of a state where nothing existed: thus nothingness. The very title of this thread - "Can something come out of nothing?" - presupposes this.

It does not hurt that along the line we see that the presumed starting point is actually false: that only helps us understand the self-existent nature of the ultimate reality - God.

Huxley, I have no doubt that there are loads of laws of the universe currently unknown to us. That is not the issue. The question is if these Laws can be considered Natural Laws or not.

Let us look at this statement of yours critically again.

You accept that there are unknown laws.

You accept that the laws known so far are natural laws.

So on what basis will you question the "naturalness" of laws yet to be known?

Only on the basis that they are not yet known?

O, Come on now Pastor.

You stated this -

If however you reject our definition of Nature and leave Nature open ended so that we can keep shifting the goalposts in order to fit in any phenomena that we might encounter then we need to be ready for one possibility.

That we will discover a spiritual reality and even God and find that it is ALL very NATURAL. Spirits will be Natural to and there'll still be no such thing as the supernatural.

And this ties perfectly into my surmise: that EVERYTHING is natural.

mazaje:
How can we get to know about this oneness of infinity? Does it speak through deepsight?

I am the anointed prophet of the Oneness of Infinity sent to redeem Nairaland.

All hail and respect the prophet!

It is okay if you refer to me as the "only begotten son" of the oneness - or the incarnation of the Oneness - make images of me and start worshipping!

Quote from Pastor AIO -

Huxley, I have no doubt that there are loads of laws of the universe currently unknown to us. That is not the issue. The question is if these Laws can be considered Natural Laws or not.

So as soon as such laws become known to us, then they become "natural?" Because i see that you regard the known laws as natural.

Haba, Pastor, so "natural" now means anything that mankind knows?

I suppose in that case 6000 years ago the Earth's water cycle was not natural, since it was not known to man? ? ?

Come on.

Nature occupies space and time and Natural influences traverse Space and Time

How is this diferent from my statement that "natural" is anything that exists? ? ? Only that i would stretch it in my case to include even things beyond space and time.

On "define" and "describe" - i already predicted that you would drag us into hair-splitting semantics. What would you say if i use the word - "Explain."

Will that pull the rug from your word games?

I state that nature = reality. Will you also tell me that "reality" cannot be "defined" because that will limit it? Ok, i leave the semantics to you, i will henceforth use the word "explain" to escape your word games, which i believe are neither here nor there and do not address the question - "what is natural?"

Anything real and embeded in the laws of existence is what is natural. That, my friend, if it is not a definition or a description, is an explanation.

I stated in the other thread that we start from the premise - "zero is nothing" - only as a hypothetical start-point: and in addressing it, we realize in the chain of premises that it is actually not nothing.

The first premise is only a grounder to start with a line of reasoning which ends in proving that there is nothing like nothingness.

I don't see the problem, friend.

P.s: please can you teach me how you write words and turn them into links. I like that, but i dont know how to do it, thanks.

If Humans can do these things, What about an all powerful and supposedly loving father?. . .God is not even there to comfort the victims of any natural disaster humans alone are always doing everything for themselves. . . .Yet the religionist will keep going around praising and thanking imaginary beings that and never anywhere. . . . .

You contradict yourself. You are stating that humans are trying to develop ways to deal with those things. That clearly shows that their creator has given them the ability to deal with those things.

I wondered recently why my dog's teeth are always clean despite the fact that he does not use a toothbrush. The creator gave the animal the sort of biological system that produces necessary chemicals to rid its teeth of food and plac growth. This is because the creator knew the animal he was making would not be given the intelligence or abilities to develop a toothbrush.

But where there is intelligence, nature demands that IT MUST BE USED. Thus human teeth will rot away if not cleaned regularly.

The reason that nature demands constant use of intelligence is the fact that intelligence itself will rot away if not used constantly.

This explains why the animal may have ears that hear geological vibrations and move on - but the human is REQUIRED TO USE EITHER HIS INTELLIGENCE OR SPIRITUAL CAPACITIES TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.

easylogic:
Any world which has Natural laws will have natural disasters.
It is like asking,why are bachelors umarried males?

Plate tektonics are the causes of earthquakes which are created by fault lines in the Earth's crust.

For there to be no Earthquakes,we will have to have no oceans and preferably very cool core.Under this circumstances,life would not exist on earth.

Therefore any planet with oceans and land masses,will have earthquakes.

My point being, the only way we can avert natural disasters,is by suspending natural laws.

Mavenb0x:
@OP: Why is there free oxygen in the earth's atmosphere? Why do trees stand their ground and animals roam? Why do things decay?

Excellently put. The Atheist expects God to be illogical; their apprehension of omnipotence includes the ability to erase existential laws: which ability must per force render all things non-existent in the first place as nothing can exist without existential laws.

I have always said that i have scant regard for the line of reasoining which places God at the epicentre of blame for perfectly natural occurences which we as intelligent beings should be able to discern beforehand and move away from.

Damn it: there are animals that are able to sense these things months in advance as it has been shown that prior to an earth quake or Tsunami, there are many species that instinctively migrate.

But humans are too busy making money to rouse their extra-sensory perception into working as it was intended to.

Any how, as man advances further, those abilities will be roused.

Pastor - I hear you, but still disagree.

I disagree that anything that is defined necessarily must be finite. In this let us not be too picky on the etymology of the word "define." We could use the word "describe" - (although you would come around to tell me that anything that has been described is thus circumscribed.)

If i define God as Eternal - having no boundaries - that definition holds - and yet God is not finite in the least. In this however we have clearly pointed out what God is (eternal) and what he is not (finite).

I may also define infinity as being endless - that definition holds - and yet infinity is not finite in the least.

At all events i am convinced that the foregoing is neither here nor there.

Because for anything to exist, it must be possible. For something to be possible, it must fit into, or derive from self-existent laws of existence, or be a self-existent thing

The laws of existence are the very definition of what is natural: for the precise reason that they are reality itself - and nothing could be said to be natural but reality itself.

Thus it follows that everything that exists and rests in reality is what is natural. There is thus nothing like supernatural at all. God itself is natural.

The problems exists only when you attempt to define natural as that which mankind knows, apprehends, or can explain. This is a fallacy. If an alien civilization exists 50 billion light years away from the earth they might describe humans as "unnatural" or "supernatural" simply because humans are not within their experience.

Now are humans "supernatural?" No we are not. We are simply outside the experience of that civilization.

In much the same way, God, UFOs, ghosts, spirits and other such phenomena are simply outside the experience of alot of humanbeings. This is why they call such things "supernatural."

I thus fully agree with huxley on this -

If your glass instantly dematerialises and rematerialises at a different location, how are we to know if it is not obeying some yet-to-be-discovered natural law?

If something exists: it cannot be said to be "super-existent" - it is "existent" and that is what is my perception what of what natural is.

I repeat; anything that exists is what is natural.

Nothing exists that is not natural.

The fact of existence is what I choose to define as naturalness.

This is because existence means that some is resting in reality.

What better definition of naturalness can we contrive, save to state that what is natural is that which is real?

Reflect carefully on this.

Pastor AIO:
Thank you very much for your questions Mazaje. In order for this thread to get off the ground I think that you will need to provide a generic definition for what Natural is first. And then we can say that anything that doesn't fit this definition can be called supernatural.

Calling something "above or beyond what is natural, unexlainable by natural law or phenomena " . . .ya da yada ya da is not saying anything at all if we don't have a working definition for what we call Natural.

In all my years of discussions and reading books and websites by atheists and engaging them in tete a tete, I am yet to hear a well thought out, simple definition of Natural. I will appreciate it if you could attempt this simple task, thank you.

To properly get where I'm coming from it might help to view this thread.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.160.html#msg3998952

I would say starting from post 183, but that could just be my ego talking.

The thread is actually very messy cos it seemed that Huxley was simply reluctant to offer a properly rigorous definition or he was put out of his depth by the question. I tried really hard to help him.

I put it to the forum that there is absolutely no way to define Natural without leaving room in observed phenomena for the supernatural (the non-natural, that is). All the top Naturalists have tried, I would welcome you to give it a go.

And you are not allowed to simply say that the Natural is "All there is" that is not a definition and is in fact an -ism rather than a concept.

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS IS NATURAL ONLY. WE USE THE WORD "SUPRENATURAL" BECAUSE WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND CERTAIN THINGS.

WHEN WE SEE A MAN WALKING ON WATER WE CALL IT SUPERNATURAL BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE ARE NATURAL LAWS BY WHICH SUCH A THING MAY HAPPEN.

Krayola:
I also have a question regarding the "soul". Where does it come from? . . . As in, is one's "soul" 50% from the mother and 50% from the father? Do little spermies have souls, or do eggs in the ovaries have souls. Are souls lost during every mas.turbation session, or every time an unused egg is "flushed out"; Or does the soul enter into the body after birth, or at the point one gains "consciousness", in which case it has nothing to do with the parents. . . . ?

Souls are precipitations from the radiation of the one true reality - God.

Depending on the degree of energy within each soul, some souls remain floating in unconsciousness outside the material realm for all eternity.

Other souls with high degrees of energy are prompted by that energy to float out from the immaterial and enter the world of matter.

In this material realm, souls incarnate within developing foetus about the middle of pregnancy.

The laws of attraction govern what sort of soul is attracted to what sort of mother.

The laws of Karma are also active at this. But the laws of Karma are really nothing but a manifestation of the laws of attraction.

^^^ I can't wait for the trashing you will dish out to me. O well, its just as well that i'm a masochist.

viaro:
As an asides -

(1) what is 'genuine spirituality'?

The search for truth, and the application of the inner being - the spirit - towards transcendental harmony.

Quote from Viaro -

It is not so much a matter now about what arguments you lay out from the Christian worldview; but I'm quite interested in your own god/God. He/she/it is said to be a 'zero', 'nothingness', '0', 'infinity', and yet borrowing from the philosophers of yerter-times, you opine that this same he/she/it is the 'first cause', 'prime mover', or 'uncaused causer' of existence (or of all that exists).

Now, now, now. . these things are just floating around my head, so don't take these clichés and clauses as the final or exact quotes of your statements. Perhaps when the time comes, we shall take a look at the god of Deism - whether in your thread on the 'oneness of infinity' or another thread that may please you.

Let me be clear: the fact that i use numbers as a logical mirror for explaining the existence of God does not mean that i believe God to be numbers.

God is a THE self-existent reality that is truly real: everything else is a reflection of some sort: God is the Living Light, the I AM THAT I AM - THE TRUTH.

But if i were to speak for the generality of deists or the deist worldview (of which there are many - there are even christian-deists) - i would simply say that God is the almighty transcendental being that created all that exists: his existence can be logically inferred, but he remains incomprehensible and inapproachable almost in the sense that the agnostic may suggest. Most deists reject religion.

Quote from Nuclearboy -

Finally, what you sow, you reap! Fine! But your inheritance from your parents, DeepSight, did you sow that? What we claim here too is that salvation is an inheritance gotten from a father, BECAUSE YOU ACCEPTED HIM AS FATHER.

Do you believe in reincarnation? In Karma from one lifetime to the other?

Please in your answer do not be coloured by Hebrews 9:27 - because it is clear that both Jesus and the Jews accepted the reality of reincarnation.

Yes Maven, i play Chess, and since you boldly assert that that you are "excellent" and "advanced" at playing chess, if you can find an on-line tool, let's have a go at it.

^^^ I thought i was explaining that in the oneness of infinity thread.

But let me drop this thought - which i have told Viaro before - there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist anywhere.

Nothingness is what the word implies. . . it is "nothing!"

Now since nothingness does not exist, the question is moot as all things "come out of" somethingness - and the ultimate soomethingness is the self-existent reality which needs no creator - that is - God himself.

Mavenb0x:
The initial opportunity IS choosing Christ, the same way every criminal goes to prison and they can decide to let the correctional institute change them, or they can just "serve time" and exit the same way.

Can you tell me what it takes for a human being to “choose Christ?” Can a person choose Christ if he has never heard of the man called Jesus? Answer me this please.

There was nobody saved before Jesus Christ. They were not in heaven before Jesus came. In particular, the holy Jews were in a section of hell called "Abraham's bosom" where the throes of hell could not get to them (see the parable of Lazarus and the rich man). I believe every "people" had such a special section, because there were just men like Enoch and Noah and Job who were not Jews.

Who were the figures that appeared beside Christ at the transfiguration? Can I safely quote you as indicating that those two noblemen were appearing beside Christ from a “reserved” part of hell?

Answer me on this, please.

When Jesus died, he told the thief on the cross beside him "You will be with me in paradise today" and that was true because they both went to paradise that day. Three days in paradise, and Jesus overcame the devil and made a mockery of him IN HIS OWN DOMAIN. And then, whoever BELIEVED his gospel the same way YOU have a choice to believe the gospel today, went on into heaven.

Please educate my ignorance and delineate for me the distinctions between “paradise” and “heaven.”

There was no human agent in heaven before Christ rose.

What about the account of Elijah being taken up into heaven? This happened well before Christ, yes?

All those AFTER Christ died have the same opportunity as those ones because God is Just.

Now you are venturing into very dangerous territory and I am sniffing contradictions all over the place.

You stated that Christ went to preach to the dead after he died on the cross so that they could have the chance proffered by the gospel.

Then Christ rose again and returned to sit at the right hand side of the father.

Now after Christ had departed the world, you are doubtless aware that for centuries, and even up till this day – millions of people have been born and lived and died WITHOUT EVER HEARING OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.

1. What happens to such people – as they were not amongst “the dead” that he supposedly went to preach to after he died?

2. To crystallize it for you – imagine the West-Indians who inhabited the Americas for centuries – even after Christ. Imagine a good, honest, sincere West Indian man living say, 1, 500 years ago in the Americas. He happens to love his fellow and is the epitome of kindness and graciousness. He lives his entire life without ever hearing of Jesus from Nazareth. He dies. What happens to him? Remember this is AFTER Jesus has already supposedly been to the grave to preach to those there – so he cannot benefit from that supposed intervention. What becomes of him, for his great crime of never hearing of the existence of the Nazarene carpenter?

3. After you answer the above, let’s look at another scenario. Let’s imagine that by some odd twist of fate our kindly West-Indian in another age, happened to come across some one like Christopher Columbus – who now tells him the gospel of Christ. But expectedly, it all sounds simply like a strange foreign myth, just like all tribes have their own myths, dogmas and legends. Our kindly West-Indian man is now damned to hell-fire as he is unable to believe the tale of a foreigner who is almighty God and who was murdered and which murder serves as remission of his sins?

Perhaps while you are at it you can also take some time to tell us what fate awaits the children of such societies – who actually heard about Christ through missionaries but were too young to understand anything, and perhaps died before coming of age. Hell Fire for them too? O – if you will exempt them on account of age, can you kindly advise me as to what the cut-off age might be?

I hope you can answer these posers, and better still, I hope they give you a glimpse of how odd Christian dogma must appear to the non-Christian.

Everyone has the initial opportunity, as much as everyone can choose to be a vegetarian is they want, whether they were born into a vegetarian family or not.

Please clarify what you mean here for me. Does that "initial oppurtunity" only apply to them when they convert to christianity?

Also another question: Were there not persons who were "saved" or "went to heaven" ever before Jesus walked the earth? What does that suggest about the necessity of his sacrifice - or about your claim that it is that sacrifice that "frees" mankind from the flesh?

Now that very perfection of his word and will create serious problems for you Maven -

On the Adamic legend -

  1. If God was omniscient and perfect, he would know all things - including the future

  2. If he knew all things he would know the very result of his creation leading to sin

  3. If in spite of knowing such he could not devise a creation more perfect than that, then he can scarcely be said to be perfect

You must thus see that the Adamic idea of sin is inherently incompatible with the perfection of God, which you moot.

This deals with the Adamic legend.

But on golgotha -

 1. If God is changeless, why would he change the requirements for salvation by introducing the spectre at Golgotha and requiring all men to believe it in order to be saved? This was a clear change from the previous state of Judgment based on law and conscience, no? I thought you said God is changeless? Aha!

 2. If God is changeless, its really rich for you to insist that the prayer in Gethsemane was a script God himself had to follow. What do you make of the words - "Nevertheless not as i will but as thou wilt?" What do you make of the words - "If it is possible, let this cup pass over my head?" Remember that this is supposedly the almighty Deity who knows all things.

 3. Do you realize that your script analogy can only hold water if this world we live in is not real. I;e - It is virtual reality only, as once suggested by Rossike.

 4. "Verily verily i say unto you, whatsoevr a man soweth, the same shall he reap" - what do you make of this statement? Is it not an affirmation of the law of Karma? And if the law of Karma holds true, do you not realize that the sacrifice on the cross is incompatible with it - because we are said to reap whatever we sow: thus - it will never be "washed away" by any sacrifice, but must unconditionally be reaped in the adamantine and perfect laws of God. Do you realize that you are thus suggesting that God put aside his perfect laws of Karma in order to "change the script" halfway? All this coming from a God that you your self have described as "unchangeable"? ? ? ?

Maven? ? ?