₦airaland Forum

O, and in addittion, you still haven't given me your evidence that the first cause decidedly and conclusively CANNOT be intelligent.

I dey wait.

_Joker.

Tudor, i presume you are attempting to provide me with comic relief?

Your contradictions are so amazing it simply beggars belief.

I think together with Kay17 and Atheists you must rank as the most confused atheist on this forum.

Let's have a look at it -

I said -

. . . that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself.

And you responded -

1. That Arthur and wilbur wright created the first aircraft does it mean they can fly?

2. I create an infrared camera does that mean i can see infrared rays?

3. I produce an underwater robot can I survive underwater?

4. My CT and Ultrasound can see internal organs within your body does that preclude me being able to do same?

5. My mobile phone can send information across two continents can I do that with my body?

To which i reverted -

To create those things man posessed the intelligence and thought patterns to bring them to reality!

Does it escape you that all those technologies you mentioned contain what is called artificial intelligence! And it is that artificial intelligence that makes them function: which we bequeathed to them!

I am surprised that you did not discern your ghastly gaffe at this point. Let me briefly point it out again -

Premise A - You suppose my assertion that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself - to be a wrong assertion; and you propose to debunk it by -

Premise B - - giving examples of things created by intelligent beings and which thereby contain artificial intelligence! ! !

Do you see it now, duh? You gave an example for my case, not against my case: your example dwelt on intelligent beings bequething artificial intelligence!

What a hocus pocus laugh! Talk about playing into my hands entirely!

Any onlooker can easily see that you have spent your energy arguing my own point for me!

What you effectively showed by your examples is that pieces of technology with articial intelligence built into them are the products of intelligent minds! Tudor, have you had something to eat today? What sort of analogy was that? Since when did i hire you to make points favourable to my case?

And as though that was not enough, you now went on to solidify my case by a total and unconditional concession of defeat. It really shocked me that you could make arguments so favourable to my case and yet stand back clueless about what you have said.

See your own words -

We are able to create 'artificial intelligence' as you put it because we arrange the elements and reactions in a particular order to acheive such a result.

GBAM! GBAM!! GBOGA!!!

End of story, someone help me out here, what more need i say?? You have yourself explained why we can create artificial intelligence. You have talked about "arranging elements in a particular order!"

And yet you comically insist that our own intelligence needed no preceding intelligence!

Tudor, since when did you become an apostle of intelligent design? Why are you arguing in favour of the existence of a higher intelligence?

_{P.s: all that hocus pocus about 14 billion years is a non-starter because it presumes things to be already existent, whereas the universe is finite in the past. Shelve it.}

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5171345#msg5171345 date=1261562451]More crap.
Matter is converted to energy which can neither be created nor destroyed so what are you blabbing about? [/quote]And is the energy infinite? Go back to Einstein's works please!

Again: note that your points amount to stating that the creator of a mobile phone or airplane could not conceivably be intelligent!

You are digging a hole, Tudor!

Your last two posts are more like it! Good, Tudor!

I will address them later cos i am heading to my ofis now.

But preliminary thoughts on the penultimate post is this:

To create those things man posessed the intelligence and thought patterns to bring them to reality!

So you have creded the debate again.

This God may not be able to defecate, as humans do, but he similarly posesses the thought patterns and intelligence to create beings that could!

Does it escape you that all those technologies you mentioned contain what is called [b]artificial intelligence! And it is that artificial intelligence that makes them function: which we bequeathed to them![/b]

Capisce?

Will be right back. . .

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5171205#msg5171205 date=1261560817]Since God created man himself what stops God from creating a human body capable of containing him?[/quote]Ta. . . didn't expect you to grasp that matter is by nature finite. . . ta ta . . .

still waiting for ya positive evidence that the first cause could not conceivably be intelligent. . .

talk about ridiculuous assumptions!

like i said b4 -

If you fail to give a reason, then your assertion that the first cause lacks intelligence is nothing but dogma - which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of! Indeed your dogmatism will be far worse than ours because we have proferred reasons - you are yet to proffer ANY reason.

And by the way, i did proffer a reason for supposing that God could not walk the earth as a man -

Well i must say that until very very recently my thinking was this: Even if God may incarnate as a man, why should i regard any particular truth-bringer as God himself? I regard Christ as one of many truth bringers, and there is no reason to suppose that he is God himself, especially as he said quite alot to suggest that he is not God.

But recently my thinking has developed slightly. I no longer believe that God may actually enter creation as a man. I reflect that the enormity of divine infinity, which is what God is, cannot be borne within material finity. I do not believe that the material world or the human body can support God: in much the same way as an animal body cannot support a human spirit.

_{Hint: Same way as a more advanced software may not be supported by less advanced hardware.}

But i do not suppose that you will be able to respond rationally to this!

Ha ha. I ask for your reasons for positively asserting that the first cause lacks intelligence and all you do is spew insults and entirely avoid the question. Tudor one sign of mental incapacity is brain-dead-self-repetition. You do not use a statement as its own justification, son. Thus your bovine repetition of -

You claiming the first cause is intelligent, living being etc are as deluded and psychotic as one who claims it has three heads, a son, loves human sacrifices and encourages paedophilia. . . . .is there any difference?

- Makes no sense at all, given the fact that i have given REASONS for my suppositions. You attack the supposition of intelligence without advancing ANY REASONS for attacking it. That's frankly infantile.

No escape, its simple enough.

We both agreed there is a first cause.

I said i suppose it has intelligence and i gave my reason -

. . . that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself.

If you suppose the contrarr, namely that it does not have intelligence, give us your reason: either way, for you to describe me as psycotic, you must have some positive evidence that the first cause lacks intelligence, no?

If you fail to give a reason, then your assertion that the first cause lacks intelligence is nothing but dogma - which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of! Indeed your dogmatism will be far worse than ours because we have proferred reasons - you are yet to proffer ANY reason.

_{Small wonder the thread we opened to hear you out was such an empty skunk.}

^^^ Neither is there evidence to suggest that the First Cause is[b] not [/b] a being. So what are you on about?

In several of our excahnges you have conclusively accepted that there must be a first cause, and you also assert that even scientists accept that.

The contention is therefore the nature of that first cause.

In discussing its nature you cannot conclusively assert that it must per force be devoid of an attribute such as intelligence - unless of course you are omniscient.

Admittedly, neither can i assert its nature conclusively, but the world around me strongly suggests intelligence rather than the absence of it.

Whichever way we argue it, you have no basis for stating that it must lack intelligence as you do not know that for a fact.

My own thinking is that it has intelligence: now although i agree that i cannot be conclusive, since i am not omniscient as you are, at least i have advanced some reasons why i think it must have intelligence. Such as when i argued that a force cannot bequeath attributes that it does not have in itself. Now even if you disagree with this reason, i have at least proferred one.

What reason can you proffer Tudor, for your positive assertion that the first cause cannot be intelligent, and that anyone who believes so is deluded?

For us to be deluded, you must have some positive evidence that the first cause lacks intelligence, no?

Give us such evidence!

Mavenb0x:
1. The very reason Christ cried out this way was because Jesus was quoting from Psalm 22 which would have been immediately recognized by those within earshot, and today by those who know the Psalms. It follows the classic pattern of the Todah Psalms – suffering followed by deliverance. Jesus the Messiah, Son of David, draws attention to this psalm not only because it is a prophecy of his crucifixion, but because he can very confidently give thanks knowing it’s purpose. Raising his voice, he began reciting the Psalms, starting with, and ending with, the two verses below:

NOTE the beginning and the end were the words recorded in the gospels. Why is that? In a form of symbolism, the gospel writers recorded only the beginning and the end of Christ's words as he hung on the cross, struggling to say the words (due to asphyxiation by virtue of the cross). I believe he said the whole psalm, because when you read it you get an exact description of what happened at the cross.

Maven, this is the best explanation of that cry on the cross that i have ever been given.

Thanks for the insight. I will reflect on it.

justcool:
Honestly, Deepsight, its very difficult to capture your belief; one cannot safely call you a deist. Deism implies that a supreme being created the universe. You see why I will not label you a deist; you don't believe that the supreme mover or creator is a being, rather you chose to call the supreme "Oneness of Infinity, Compound of all self-existent laws, Universal Mind, and etc." I think the only think I can labell your belief is Agnostic theism.

Deepsight, with all due respect, your definition of God is very ambiguous.

My Dear Friend and Brother Justcool -

Actually i limit my definition intentionally: for the purpose of scientifically engaging the atheistic mind and showing such a mind that something which must be defined as God necessarily exists. However as Tudor has already pointed out, i have at many times also made clear that i believe God to be a being. I will take a few moments in a subsequent post to indicate the reasons for the definitions i gave above.

justcool:
@ Deepsight

The above suggests that you are not opposed to the idea that God or a part of God can incarnate in a physical body and live on earth like men. Then what exactly is your problem with the idea that Jesus is the incarnate of a part of God?

Well i must say that until very very recently my thinking was this: Even if God may incarnate as a man, why should i regard any particular truth-bringer as God himself? I regard Christ as one of many truth bringers, and there is no reason to suppose that he is God himself, especially as he said quite alot to suggest that he is not God.

But recently my thinking has developed slightly. I no longer believe that God may actually enter creation as a man. I reflect that the enormity of divine infinity, which is what God is, cannot be borne within material finity. I do not believe that the material world or the human body can support God: in much the same way as an animal body cannot support a human spirit.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5170274#msg5170274 date=1261547200]Did I claim to be the first cause?

Stay off the hard drugs my guy.[/quote]You didn't get it, did you? Ok, let's go kindergarten: a fellow man like YOU is claimed to be the first cause. . . need i go on. . . .?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5170274#msg5170274 date=1261547200]@justcool.
Deep sight believes the first cause to be a being. . . .thats one of his many delusions.[/quote]You must be omniscient to be able to assert conclusively that the first cause is not an element that has attributes of a being!

O well, since you are that first cause yourself, i guess you should know!

viaro:
You remind me of Romans 11:22 - 'Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God. . .'

Good. But you should reflect on that Viaro, when you imagine that in his severity, he would permit an innocent one to bear the sins of guilty ones (Golgotha).

You should also remember the very words of your carpenter-God: "Whatever a man sows the same shall he reap" - and thereby understand that no man's sins are washed away by any "sacrifice" - but that each man must unconditionally reap what he has sown (Karma).

viaro:
To be honest with you, if we all assume just that linear and pessimistic ideology about these issues, there would hardly be any church at all. Indeed, many who are called are not actually called - and we know how to identify them. But these folks who are not called should not becloud our sense of judgement as to fail in recognizing those who are called of God in various ministries.

Well said, brother.

JeSoul:
Oga, wouldn't this require the Naija Pastoral leadership to actually be willing to be held accountable? For people who argue "well Abraham and Lot were filthy rich too" I think accountability would be asking waay too much

It has nothing to do with their willingness. A Charity Commission simply audits the finances of ALL charitable organizations (and this includes churches and mosques) with a view to determining if fraud is being practiced.

It is important in secular terms to reach such a determination because these organizations are exempt from tax on account of their supposed non-profit status, and if it is found that their purposes include private enrichment then this amounts to tax evasion which is a crime.

Capisce?

Yeah yeah yeah, but that is the default line, Viaro, everybody seems to be called of God to do so: including all the three Redeemed Churches on a single street not far from my house in lagos!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=370241.msg5168315#msg5168315 date=1261515749]Physically assaulting your congregation and r.aping their finances. . .what's the difference? [/quote]Great point!

I have presumed no such thing.

I have merely presumed that YOU, Tudor, are not the First Cause.

Capisce?

JeSoul:
Rational and government in the same sentence? An oxymoron if I ever saw one.

I'm wary of govt. interfering with institutions like churches, it is a dangerous path. The most effective way to "curb" this phenomenon lies in the very people they are geared towards reaching . . . if people don't attend the churches, they will close down. Simple. But as long as there is a demand, there will continue to be increase in the supply.

Iyawo -

A UK-Style Charity Commission would be apt.

Ah, manmustwac, i dont know o, but you might want to be wary of the likes of Reverend King who burnt and flogged his congregation

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5167442#msg5167442 date=1261508411]What is so deluded about God having a son who is also god?

If we can have sons on earth why cant extra-terrestials have sons?

BIG FAT PRESUMPTION DEEP SIGHT.[/quote]You have presumed that intelligence cannot exist within an entity that is the First Cause. Ridiculous presumption in the extreme.

In reference to your analogy, i simply reject the claims of a fellow human being to be that First Cause.

Aha! See your mis-jive now? ? ?

JeSoul:
Quick question Deepsight.

Have you ever wondered if your wealth of knowledge and depth of intellect may be a stumbling block in your quest for 'truth'?

Yes. So right m'dear. But let us search with spirit and mind.

Nuclear; let me just make one thing clear - this is not about intellect for me: from the age of about 12 i have strenuously sought the truth and i am still doing so. The world and universe around me fills me with wonder. Thus i seek.

The walk has taken me through a great many christian sects, prime amongst which were the Jehovah's Witnesses. I have studied the Quoran and have several Islamic works in a personal library right here in my bedroom. I have studied and attempted pure Buddhism, and have been at times associated with The Rosicrucian Order, the Grail Message and diverse religious, theological and philosophical movements.

Disatisfied with most, i started about 10 years ago whilst in University to stare at the night sky and ponder out my own perspectives on existence. It has been an enlightening walk. I find that many religions actually contain major parts of THE TRUTH. But human dogma beclouds alot.

I only say this so that you know that my search has been long and it is sincere. Mind games are meaningless. The truth is out there.

Together, we can find it.

nuclearboy:
@KunleOshob:

"Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God".

"I and the Father are ONE" "and the pharisees sought to kill Him for making Himself God, being Man".

Nuclear - Jesus himself explained the term "I and my Father are one" severally. He stated unequivocally that he and his father were one in the same way as we should be one with him. Now are you Jesus? No. But you are one with him in spirit as a christian, yes?

Thus the oneness was a oneness of accord, and not an ontological or existential oneness as an entity.

This verse elucidates and proves the point:

John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Its abundantly clear that its a spiritual and not ontological or existential oneness. There. That's Bible proof.

That's fine. No problems.

But how will you, as a christian, contextualize such "multiple realities" with the spiritual development which i imagine should be the purpose of your earthlife? I am just interested, really.

^^^ What is so deluded about extra-terrestial intelligence? ? ? ? ?

If you could have intelligence here on earth, why do you presume there cannot be intelligence elsewhere? ? ? ?

BIG FAT PRESUMPTION TUDOR.

muhsin:
Is that really coming from you, Deep Sight?

Was the above reply "deeply sighted" before submitting?

Have you reviewed this thread?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-324169.0.html

^^^ Viaro - agreed, but it cannot be denied that alot of laughable hocus pocus goes on in some of these churches.

Have i not made it clear that i have never espoused a big daddy sitting in the sky?

How else can i explain myself?

I have at different times defined God as -

   1. The Oneness of Infinity

   2. The Compound of all self-existent laws

   3. The primordial singularity of all existence

   4. The Universal Mind

How do any of the above appear to you as delusions?

How do they approximate to the jealous and vengeful Yahweh and his injunctions to stone people to death?

So Beneli, do you imagine that there are infinite numbers of YOU in infinitie time and space dimensions living out an infinity of different tangential possibilities of destiny simultaenously.

Because that is what you have suggested.

I do not discard the possibility: i need to know if that is what you assert or imagine[b] is possible.[/b]

Don4life:
I Have Seen Hell And The Devil, Heaven Is Made With Gold. This Is My Story
« on: Yesterday at 08:27:02 PM »
Modify message
As Quoted 4rm Author Greenbound

It was time for bed, i moved into my bed room, prayed to my sweet Jesus
as usual and also, i chant my usual lines "God, i prefer to be the last in heaven
than to be the first in HELL.

I pounced on my water bed and in seconds i was off.
IT WAS LIKE MAGIC, I WAS IN HEAVEN, I WAS LIKE A GATE MAN AND THERE
WAS A WINDOW AND I SAW WHAT LOOKED LIKE PLANET EARTH BURNING SO
BAD THAT THE BLUE, GREEN AND WHITE COLOR OF EARTH FROM SPACE WAS
NO MORE.

EARTH ALREADY TURNED INTO A DARK PLANET BURNING THICK BLACK SMOKE WITH
RED HOT DOTS ALL OVER IT. JUST LIKE HE THE DEVIL WAS DESCRIBED IN THE
HOLY BOOKS, I SAW THE KING OF HELL HIMSELF, THE DEVIL AND HE WAS AS
BIG AS THE EARTH ITSELF.

THE SCENE LOOKED LIKE THAT OF A LIZARD IN A LABORATORY GLASS JAR.
THE DEVIL WAS BURNING HELL IN THERE. MY GUY, HELL IS REAL O, I HAVE
SEEN IT, IT IS REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

PLEASE GIVE YOUR LIFE TO JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THE WORLD WILL END
COME 2010 AND BEYOND. WOW, I WAS HAPPY IN THAT DREAM.

SUDDENLY, I SAW MYSELF STANDING ON A GROUND SURFACE AND THE
SURFACE WAS SHINNING LIKE GOLD. I LOOKED BESIDE ME AND I SAW
SOMETHING WHICH LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE A CHARIOT, I TOUCHED IT, IT
WAS MADE OF PURE GOLD AND SILVER, EVERYTHING WAS MAGICAL.

JUST LIKE IN HOLLYWOOD, BOLLYWOOD AND NAIJA NOLLYWOOD MOVIES,
I WOKE UP SITTING ON MY WATER BED, I WAS SURPRISED, AFRAID AND ALSO
HAPPY AT THE SAME TIME. I WAS FILLED WITH JOY BECAUSE I WAS GIVEN THE
PRIVILEDGE TO LOOK INTO THE FUTURE WHICH IS NEAR 2010 BEYOND.

BELIEVE, THIS IS A TRUE STORY.

Yours Truelly.
Green bound.

Why these vicious lies at Christmas?