₦airaland Forum

toneyb:
The tsunami that killed over 25000 is what you call beautiful?

Tornadoes, hurricanes, Tsunamis, and other such natural "disasters" are normal parts of the Earth's balancing process and are necessary and integral for the continuous renewal and maintenance of the Earth's diverse natural systems. You should know this Tony.

Man however has developed in a wronmg direction - overly dependent on the physical senses alone. A proper line of development would have seen man able to sense the onset of these events and avoid them. I will elaborate on this further in a later post.

toneyb:
Food chain(prey vs game). The excruciting pain animals lower in the food chain suffer in the hands of animals above them because they serve as their food. Have you see the way tiger reap apart a baby gazell? Is that what you call beautiful?

Again this is a balancing process necessary for the health of the ecosystem and also has other effects such as necessary population control.

Besides slight research will show you that such animals posess powerful anti-pain hormones that kick-in in those situations. Yous see, nature has no vacuum. . .

toneyb:
Did man create asteroid? What about the sun whose ultraviolent rays some times causes cancer? Did man create the tectonic places that causes earth quake and tsunamis? What about micro-organisms that cause verious kinds of diseases? What super nova and the endless explosions that occur in outer space? Colliding stars and galaxies? Did man create them?

And you are well aware that these processes lead to the formation of worlds such as ours!

So what's your point now, Tony?

^^^ Yes, absoluetly everything! - Save the crappy stuff the WE make ourselves.

Nature itself is balanced and beautiful.

Man's creations are wonky and ugly! And Man's greed and lust leads to more ugly stuff like war and diesease. Then you will have some clown turn around and blame it all on a God you he states does not even exist.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5033932#msg5033932 date=1259748249]Well After all the ranting back and forth NOBODY is yet to tell us where God was during the genocide and why he/she/it didn't stop it.

What I gotta do to get an answer. . .sacrifice my testicles? [/quote]Abeg jaare go siddon for one side!

Are you for real? ? ?

Were you not exposed in your sickening contradictions earlier in this thread and you are still yapping? ? ? ? ? ?

You stated very clearly yourself that humans are the ones responsible for the genocide. So what more do you have to say again? Hold your peace and let others who have not yet contradicted themselves do the talking.

I have noticed that the most brilliant line you consistently offer is merely to repeat that no one has proved anything - even after all the proof in teh world has been given to you!

If you don't have an xplanation as to how existence came to be, then be silent!

Kay 17:
Man's knowledge is so vast, that we can explain any phenomena around us.

I am just going to try very hard to ignore this statement. It seems clear to me you live within the Tom and Jerry Series, otherwise there is NO WAY IN HELL you would dare to be so presumptuous as to make this sort of statement. If you bothered to spend just a little bit of your time watching channels like National Geographic, you would be better educated on the fact that man's knowledge of the universe is infinitesimal, indeed - miniscule to say the least. What we know so far is like a grain of sand compared to all the sand in the world.

How dare you state that "we can explain ANY phenomena around us"? ? ? ? ? I hate to be rude, so please pardon me in advance when i say that this is teh most ignorant thing i have seen any person write since i joined NL!

Kay 17:
we have been able to count the planets, stars, galaxies, landed on other planets.

I positively challenge you to show me what scientific enquiry has ever been able to determine with exactitude the number of planets, stars and galaxies in teh universe. It's either you are quite ignorant of this subject, or you are so blown away by the modest acheivements of human science that you forget yourself.

thus, aletheia has to be omniscient to say God exists in spite of all the facts to the contrary

AND YOU TOO HAVE TO BE OMINSCIENT TO SAY THAT HE DOES NOT EXIST.

And by the way - what facts to the contrary do you speak of? You can see all the wonder of living things, the complexity and technical precision of the brain, and th esplendour of the cosmos and you dare speak of "facts to the contrary? ? ? ? ?" Are you blind, or what's the issue? ? ? ? ? ?

Everything around us is screaming the existence of a superior intelligence by whatever name called.

Please be more discerning.

ToneyB - What do you mean he wrote a perfect summary? Could you not at least educate him on the obvious limits of man's knowledge? ? ?

Perhaps it is important for me to make a certain clarification here: God certainly is and remains incomprehensible to every human mind.

What i certainly believe can be ascertained or logically inferred is his/ her/ it's EXISTENCE.

In much the same way as if we hear scratching within a box, we may logically infer that a creature of some sort is within the box. We may not be able to infer its nature.

But we may be able to infer that such a creature has paws with which to scratch. Or some other ability to make the scratching sound.

This is only a crude example, but i simply mean to say that a full absorbtion of the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 will settle the question that nothing could exist if there was not on the left side of the equation (i.e outside of space & time) a permanent self existent quantity which i call God. Now, from what i see within the universe, i can also infer a few of his/her/ its attributes - in much the same way as we inferred that the creature in the box had the abvility to scratch things. I can easily infer, for example the attributes of great power and intelligence withim that quantity on the left side of my equation.

We may not be ble to apprehend the quantity, what it means and its nature: but we can certainly apprehend that it is there and this we can do empirically, but better still - intuitively.

How come you do not have three of the very best on your list. . . M_nwankwo, Prizm and VIARO?

But my votes would jointly go to Pastor AIO and Krayola.

Back to this. It seems to me that Wirinet by his depositions mostly acceded to the existence of the non-physical.

If the non-physical does exist regarding man, then surely the Opening post regarding the existence of the spirit is still a big question for the atheist?

WHERE IS KAG? I WILL BE INTERESTED IN HEARING HIS HER VIEWS ON THIS.

ToneyB -

This is what i wrote on this on another thread currently running -

To understand this, i think we should return to the philosophical question of necessary things and contingent things. Basically necessary things are things which self-exist - things which could not NOT exist. Contingent things basically are not inherently self existent: or put better - require a cause to exist.

For a simple example, let me cite these: Time is a necessary thing. Time is something that cannot NOT exist. Time is. Now without getting into the dynamics of whether or not space and time were created at the moment of the "big bang" let me just say this - i refer here to infinite time, and not finite time.

Infinite time is basically eternity. Eternity is not something that needs to be created. It quite simply is - a constancy of continuous infinity of time. It is thus a necessary and not contingent thing, and is self-existent, and needn’t be created. It is intangible, and can be referred to as a flat state of reality.

Now let’s look at another example. Let’s look, for instance (just to give a wild-example) at my Sony Bravia Flat Screen Tv. This is by no means a necessary or self-existent thing: It is a contingent thing, and even if you came upon it in the furthest reaches of the universe, you would conclude that it required a cause to exist.

Now although I know there are hairs to be split on this: let me say that the principal thing to note is that necessary things are by nature intangible, whereas contingent things are tangible. Think of every conceivable self-existent thing: eternity is self existent: and per force intangible. Numbers are also self-existent – and per force intangible.

If you think about it, you may see that anything that is self-existent, cannot also be tangible or material. One pointer to this fact is that self-existent things, being necessary and uncreated, are not capable of change. Matter, on the other hand, changes constantly and this betrays the fact that it is not a necessary or self-existent thing and accordingly: required a cause, or causative/ creative agent.

I honestly hope that this has given some perspective as to why I do not, and will never regard material things or matter, as being self-existent.

This may also be useful in understanding God as simply the compound of all self-existent laws or realities.

JeSoul:
. Personally I love Noetic, David, Osisi and others

.

David i must single out as the most trashy talker, reminiscent of a motor park tout or agbero. He is singularly the most insulting and boastful, has no ethics, etiquette or gentlemanliness whatsoever, is unspeakably childish and of mediocre intellect and unlike Noetic does not make any attempt to apologize or tone down. I think he is anything but a christian, the lousiest ambassador for Christ ever.

I only bother to state these because of his extremely and excessively distasteful nature: i do not believe in casting stones - normally i would reserve my comments.

Deep Sight:
So Tudor - It's safe to say that you are driven by a rejection of myth and superstition, yes?

Atheists:
That is what drives every atheist.

Should a Rejection of Myths and Superstitition lead any one to look around at the world and universe around him and conclude that it needed no cause or creative agent, to exist? Surely these are two distinct and unrelated issues? If the atheist believes that the gods of religion are myths only: that should only drive him more desperately to find, define and articulate what factors caused the universe to exist?

wirinet:
Yes agreed the net effect of gravitation can be attraction

I am happy to see that you have keyed into the sense in which i used the word gravity as being a sort of magnetism: because it has a similar force of attraction.

And do note that i did say that gravity is related to mass (which cannot be disputed), and not that magnetism is of mass. . .

Oh, heck with it, you scientist!

Now nonetheless, (and without spliiting hairs) we can still derive a general understanding of Karma from Gravity, in the sense that it acts similar to attractive magnetism. Indeed you are aware i am sure that scientist's are still trying to unravel possible direct links, and still appear at odds on the existence or non-existence of a direct co-relation between gravity and magnetism.

Now let me make a brief note on the fact that you mentioned: that magnetism may be repulsive: This is also true of Karma; It may repel certain things based on the inner state of the being concerned.

So it applies in many different ways, but the core principle remains the same.

^^^ No need to split hairs, i agree that magnetism and gravity are not strictly the same thing: BUT you will note i was describing THEIR effects: And in this they are very similar, and apt for the purpose of my example. And gravity also is related to mass. . .


Wikipedia:

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.[1] In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that lends weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. It is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.

That's quite true Banom - save that God is not said to ever begin to exist. It is right to say that whatever begins to exist requires a cause, but things that have always existed are self-existent and do not require a cause. As i said before, God is the compound of all self-existent laws. Accordingly he needs no creative agent to bring him into existence.

Does time need a cause?

Does eternity need a cause?

So Tudor - It's safe to say that you are driven by a rejection of myth and superstition, yes?

Krayola:
@ op, How does logical thought lead to the conclusion that karma exists. I'll love to understand that thought process.

Gravity is simply the physical form of the law of Karma, and vice versa.

Gravity is magnetism towards a core, on account of mass. Thus anything projected away from the core, such as a person jumping upwards towards the sky on earth, will fall back towards the core - the earth. That's gravity.

In similar terms each being is like a small magnet and in accordance with the law of gravity, anything projected out from it, will fall back on it. This simply is the law of Karma. Whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he reap.

Let us also note another interesting part to this. A cosmic body with great mass and great gravitational pull can attract things into its orbit that were not previously there. Thus people can attract things to themselves that were not previously there: simply on account of their inner magnetic state! At all events however - it is their own pull, that attracts those things to them.

bawomolo:
well can't it be argued something has always existed? that matter didn't need to be created.

Well if i may briefly. To understand this, i think we should return to the philosophical question of necessary things and contingent things. Basically necessary things are things which self-exist - things which could not NOT exist. Contingent things basically are not inherently self existent: or put better - require a cause to exist.

For a simple example, let me cite these: Time is a necessary thing. Time is something that cannot NOT exist. Time is. Now without getting into the dynamics of whether or not space and time were created at the moment of the "big bang" let me just say this - i refer here to infinite time, and not finite time.

Infinite time is basically eternity. Eternity is not something that needs to be created. It quite simply is - a constancy of continuous infinity of time. It is thus a necessary and not contingent thing, and is self-existent, and needn’t be created. It is intangible, and can be referred to as a flat state of reality.

Now let’s look at another example. Let’s look, for instance (just to give a wild-example) at my Sony Bravia Flat Screen Tv. This is by no means a necessary or self-existent thing: It is a contingent thing, and even if you came upon it in the furthest reaches of the universe, you would conclude that it required a cause to exist.

Now although I know there are hairs to be split on this: let me say that the principal thing to note is that necessary things are by nature intangible, whereas contingent things are tangible. Think of every conceivable self-existent thing: eternity is self existent: and per force intangible. Numbers are also self-existent – and per force intangible.

If you think about it, you may see that anything that is self-existent, cannot also be tangible or material. One pointer to this fact is that self-existent things, being necessary and uncreated, are not capable of change. Matter, on the other hand, changes constantly and this betrays the fact that it is not a necessary or self-existent thing and accordingly: required a cause, or causative/ creative agent.

I honestly hope that this has given some perspective as to why I do not, and will never regard material things or matter, as being self-existent.

This may also be useful in understanding God as simply the compound of all self-existent laws or realities.

Oh that's interesting, what's the deist concept of the afterlife. Maybe deepsight can drop in on this

Let me drop a brief thought only on this.

When you see that you were not always in this world, and that at a point in time, you will exit this world, then it must perforce occur to you that you are coming from somewhere and passing through a transitory world, and going somewhere. Namely that you are in transition, or passing through. But let us not dwell on this: let us face the core discussion.

This is really brilliant MyJoe. I will really love to share some perspectives. Nevertheless i must confess that i am steadily becoming disillusioned regarding the idea that people can really change their perspectives. Only very few are able to step outside of themselves and behold the man or the dogma in the mirror. I find that even the best and brightest will defend the most irrational and inane dogma till death: whereas it really requires child-like simplicity to see the obvious.

On a side note, may i observe that not all are really interested in knowing the truth or put better: in seeking the truth.

There has got to be within a man that resident hunger to know what the truth really is, and without that; every discourse is worthless.

I will be back.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=359166.msg5020897#msg5020897 date=1259569486]And what EXACTLY would this thread acheive? This would be a waste of my precious time.

Anybody who's intrested in my "treatise" (what the f**k does that mean?) can read all my previous posts made with this I.D and my numerous other banned i.d's. I've stated my reasons one time or the other.

There's no food for lazy man. . .you must work for your salvation.[/quote]Please indulge us. Going through all your old posts would be difficlut for any one especially because the topics are diverse.

I intend absolutely no arguments AT ALL, i just want to be informed on your perspective. You may just give us the core essentials of your reasons.

Thanks.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5019163#msg5019163 date=1259530231]Not like I give a damn what you think but there are MANY reasons I chose atheism.[/quote]All Right. Let's hear you out. Can you set out the reasons, i would be really interested in knowing.

Thanks.

aletheia:
"If I refuse to answer your phone calls, does it prove my non-existence?"

Aletheia; You have trounced Tudor with the single line above.

It is compound and absolute: he cannot reason his way out of this one.

aletheia:
@Tudor
1. Did you read what you wrote above? And to think I thought you had an intelligent and logical reason for rejecting God. I begin to see that your atheism is based on emotions rather than a logical basis. I repeat: "If I refuse to answer your phone calls, does it prove my non-existence?" The obvious answer to that is NO. I think you have a flawed understanding of logic. And also a flawed understanding of the nature of God.
2. Perhaps the second part of your reply reveals your reasons for embracing atheism. God didn't answer your prayers in a time of mortal peril. Ergo, He doesn't exist. You prove my point that atheism is the refuge of those who can not tackle the problems of life.
3. If you would take time to read my earlier posts, you will realize I 'd already given an answer to where God was; "He was present". Why don't you respond to that, instead of going on and on about "distractions". You asked a question. I am entitled to examine the assumptions that underlie that question. And here is one of them: "The question itself is based on a value judgement. Thousands of people died in horrendous circumstances but in what way is their death different from that of say, my grandfather (who died peacefully in his bed). The fact is that all humans; atheists and non-atheists die. What makes one death worse or better than the next? The atheist might as well ask where was God when my grandfather died? That the "atheist" asks this question shows he realizes there is something not right with the Rwandan Genocide. On the basis of what does he make that call?" Can you please respond to this.

This is just brilliant. I comp[letely agree with you that this thread has proved that Tudor has absolutely no rational basis for his atheism.

Banom, this is my happiest moment on Nairaland! I advise to keep to your new path: in God without the ecentricities of religion and fanaticism.

God bless you brother!!!!!

wirinet:
i can never accept that anger, jealousy, love are physical things, neither can i accept sleep, zero (as you had earlier postulated) and death as a physical thing.

Wirinet, in reference to my opening post, you have again ENTIRELY CEDED the debate. This is the second time you are accepting that non-physical things exist, contrary to the majority of your responses.

And i answered you that the legs, the privates and the heart are also tools.

And this is the third time.

viaro:
a concourse in a certain outlook that is telluric

viaro:
considered as reprobate or peccant as in the social pusillanimity of a few abuzolas.

Is this person out to destroy us all with his highly advanced grammar?

Viaro, you no go kill person o!

manmustwac:
Your not making sense. My dad has to exist to be able to punish me. My imagination cannot punish me. Likewise if God did exist he would've answered the prayers of the terrified tutsis who hid in the churches {where the worst massacres took place} praying to Him for mercy and rescued them.

All of a sudden you are in a position to determine what prayers God must answer?

^^^ Remember that i said that personally i use "him" only as per convenience. It could be "she" or "it" i repeat.

Indeed years back when i was in university i remember having smoked some serious marijuana one day, and i was contemplating as i love to the meaning of existence and God. Somewhere in that trance i had what i felt to be a unique revelation (or insight) that the first vibration of all existence is actually a feminine vibration. I wrote a poem about it. Perhaps i will share that poem with you. Its titled "black satisfaction."

Nevertheless i still think there is something to the positive / negative idea i shared with you above. The feminine is negative by definition, as negativity in philosophical terms receives while positivity gives. The sexual organs even bear this out. Light is positive, and accordingly masculine.

Just thoughts though. In pure truth, God being beyond all time and space cannot really have a gender, even in abstract terms - i recognize that. Rather he ( ) is teh compound of all things and so must be a hermaphodite!

Banom, LOL! You don kolo oooooo! Laugh wan kill me die!

@ Tudor - This is a good place for you to come share with us your worldview.

Cheers.

@ Wirinet: Where are you?

Maybe you should start off by telling if emotions are physical things. Bear in mind the context of the question which i already stated above.

Tudor -

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.[1] In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that lends weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. It is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.

That's a quote from Wikipedia on Gravity.

Try and wrap your head around it and deduce yourself how this law proves the existence of Karma.

I will not do it for you, as i have done so before but you missed it. I will only give you one hint: remember that the force of gravity and the magnetic pressur eit exerts is related to the mass of the cosmic body refferred to.

Have at it!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5011184#msg5011184 date=1259425591]there are bad people who go scot free.[/quote]You cannot state this since you do not have a compound view of all events, and all that happens to each individual.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5010938#msg5010938 date=1259422578]@deep sight. . .

You describe what divine justice might be like then claim we cannot comprehend it? Pray tell, how you came to comprehend it and how you came to know in the first place its incomprehensible.[/quote]Divine Justice is like Gravity. God, i have said before on this forum, is teh compound of all self existent laws.

Gravity springs from the oneness of infinity (but i know you are tired of that jargon of mine, so let's leave that).

Gravity is magnetic pressure towards a core (get it now?)

I will not elaborate here, but if you will reflect, you will see that Karma and gravity are the exact same principle.

This is the extent to which I understand Divine Justice – that which is put out will fall back.

What I said we cannot apprehend is the significance of each event because we don’t have a full view of all events and all events are Karmaically inter-related.

bawomolo:
Another question, why do you refer to this "first cause" as "him".  where did your knowledge of god's gender come from? 

Does the first cause have to be a man?

We use "him" only for convenience. It could be she or it.

But if you actually reflect closely, you might relize that light is a positive element, as opposed to darkness. The Masculine is a positive element (forward, thrusting) and the feminine negative - (recessive, receiving) and for this reason "somethingness" is postive and masculine, as oppossed to "nothingness" which is recessive and femine.