₦airaland Forum

The ignorance in this country is disheartening...You see a magic trick and your first thought is that it is real and they used satanic powers, jeez.

There is a reason why it is called a MAGIC TRICK, and just because you dont know how they did it doesnt make it real

I am pro-choice, i believe a woman should be given the right to do with her body whatever she seems fit...If she wants to have an abortion, then its should be her right to do so.

Need for speed...

OLAADEGBU:
Read the OP and recalibrate your post.

This is a very unenlightened response...

skeendyke:
In other words, anarchy is a welcome development based on your argument.

Again, why do people use the word 'wicked' in describing the extremist sect, boko haram, when all the murders they have committed is 'good' according to their subjective definition if the word?

Even if you don't agree with their definition, do you think they are right to act the way they do given the fact that morality does not have an objective scope of interpretation or definition?

Read my post well, i ddnt claim that everybody should live according to what suites them, i only said good and evil is subjective to human experience which it is.

Let me give an analogy, Red, Red is a colour, we see it everyday right, but you must be aware that Red is very subjective to the human experience, there is no such thing as Red in nature or the other colours for that matter, infact i cant even be sure if my Red is your Red, both because of our shared human experience, we all experience Red.

Good and evil follow the same principle, we all experience good and evil and we know that good is the utmost well being of ones self and life in general, while evil is anything short than that, we know that the outside world doesnt experience good or evil like computers or even insects(just sentient beings), so you cannot claim that there is an objective absolute moral law in the universe for an experience that is solely subjective to human experience, just the same way the experience of Red cannot be objective to the universe because it is solely a human experience.

OLAADEGBU:
Committing murder is evil regardless of culture, society, colour, age, creed or sex. Are you saying that anyone has the right to murder you because they feel it is good?

Read my post well, i never said people should do what they like, I said good and evil is a subjective experience based on HUMAN BEINGS. So a law existing out of the collective subjective experience of humans wont be possible and would be frankly flawed.

OLAADEGBU:
The atheist's dilemma

Your second argument fails...the existence of good and evil doesn't imply an absolute moral law...you are taking a quantum leap from subjectivity into objectivity.

Good and evil doesnt exist outside the realm of humans, we are what give those words meaning because by definition, it is purely subjective on the human experience. So extrapolating that there is an objective law that determines this is like saying there is an objective way of experiencing Red, that is highly flawed.

Lmao

ScienceWatch:
Albert Einstein - Defrauded his own Theory of Relativity.

Albert Einstein - did not believe in a personal God. A God that will heal and deliver.

Although today he has been proven wrong by the overwhelming biblical and scientifically verifiable evidence coming out of Scoan Church Nigeria. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion.

While developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that his mathematical equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. But because he was atheist/deist/agnostic/humanist etc he defrauded the results to fit in with his own beliefs. Can scientists be trusted ?

Einstein didn't like the idea of a beginning of the universe , because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he cunningly added a cosmological constant to his mathematical equation to attempt to get rid of the evidence of a beginning of the universe.

He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

If we wont worship the creator God,, we are atheists. Don’t be confused with the many fancy titles created, they all mean the same thing in the end.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the question i asked...

Secondly, you twisted the reason why einstein edited his equations and lied about the defrauding matter.
Both the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity have predicted accurately and are standards in physics, and even the blunder Einstein claimed he made wasnt actually a blunder, he was correct all along, the rate at which dark energy is expanded the universe is a factor of the cosmological constant whch Einstein taught was a mistake.

Get your stories straight(it had nothing to do with religion).

shadeyinka:
Hello my friend. Long time!
I've been busy lately hence my absense.
You virtually answered the questions just the same way I would if I were in your state.

Its alright, i hope you have been well

1. Which came first, Matter or the Laws and constants of Physics

Not so fast my friend.
Can Electromagnetic waves exist without electrons ( matter)?
Can gravitational constants exist without mass?

To me, matter wouldn't have existed without the laws and the laws wouldn't have existed without matter.

The emergence of both matter and the guiding laws seemes to emerge simultaneously. The simultaneous existence is as a result of intelligent design. Its like an assembly language code exists because the coder understands the architecture of the hardware of the computer.

I agree that we can say they appeared together because the four fundamental laws were one at the instant of the big bang, as the universe cooled, so dis we start seeing their effects like the strong and weak nuclear force, then as the cooling furthered electromagnetism appeared with gravity being the last as the universe cleared and light was free to move around.

I would say the laws are properties of matter in different states.

2. What determined the constants?


Interestingly, Christians have always believed in a special kind of multiverse existence with two planes (physical and spiritual) founded by intelligent design and birth.

Sometimes I wonder why science precludes the existence of non physical worlds and existence yet, we believe in complex numbers with real and imaginary parts (conjugate values, virtual values). We perform computations with virtual particles, virtual numbers, displacements.

Could it be that the physical worlds is just the conjugate of the spiritual world. If we do not have equipment and tools for measuring virtual existence, is it enough proof that it doesn't exist?

The nature of nothing is zero, emptiness and nul. We understand the nature of nothing very well from mathematics. The subset of an empty set is always empty (zero) isn't it?

Every physicist know that energy can not be created nor destroyed. Emptiness implies the existence of zero energy before the big bang. If the universe was initially empty of physical energy, then it cannot manufacture the gazillions of giga-joules in existence today.

There is a difference between abstract mathematical ideas and reality, because invoking abstract ideas like imaginary numbers and the likes doesnt mean it must translate to reality. Reality has always dictated what it is to us and not we forcing wat we think it is to it.

@bolded, if you were to add up all the net energy charge in the universe, you would get zero. What does that tell you?, it means you ddnt have to get energy from anywhere, its like breaking up 0 into -1 and 1. It is very possible that our universe is a product of nothing, please remember that the universe doesnt have to make sense to us.

3. Doesn't the harmony suggest Creation/Intelligent Design?

The harmony suggests patterns not intelligence, we know patterns can arise naturally without any intelligence from our earthly experiences.


I am sure you are thinking in terms of ice crystals.
However, the beautiful ice crystals exist because behind it is order caused by water being a polar molecule. Let's assume that water is a random arrangement of H2O I.e. the polar angle varies, wouldthe beautiful ice crystals be formed?

Ice crystals are mundanely simple when compared with the kind of systems we see in the universe. Everything works like a MACHINE. In a machine most component affect the overall behavior of the machine and these same components also interdependent on each other.

I agree, seemingly random prints can form beautiful pictures BUT with no FUNCTION.

Just because the patterns of the universe are far more grand doesnt exempt it from just being simplistic at its very core, i am sure you would agree!

4. Is there any physical proof of multi-universe?

No, no proof, its just an hypothesis and could be very wrong but it has the best chance of being right.

Of course, no proof yet could be right: complex numbers may actually point us to the right direction.
The question now remains, How can we measure an imaginary current, imaginary mass, imaginary velocity etc knowing that we do not have the capability to produce an imaginary measuring instrument.

Stay blessed

Equating imaginary numbers in maths to the multiverse might be off to some degree, the multiverse is not an abstract idea, it could be reality and all we need for it to be sure is evidence direct or indirectly. Imaginary numbers doesnt need proving as long as it works in the mathematical framework.

shadeyinka:
[b]
So, the question is:
Which came first,
1. Matter or the Laws and constants of Physics
2. What determined the constants?
Did they come by accident?
3. Doesn't the harmony suggest Creation/Intelligent Design?
4. Is there any physical proof of multi-universe?

1. The Laws came before matter as explained by the big bang theory which is the prevalent theory right now.

2. That we dont actually know, there are different hypotheses e.g

Nothing: It might be counter-intuitive but we cant rule out the possibility because we simply dont understand the nature of nothingness.

Intelligent design: It is also possible that it was intelligently designed by something(or most likely group/race of intelligent beings) but it is highly improbable and no reasonable evidence suggest any intelligence outside the solar system.

Multiverse: This is the most likely or probable but not yet experimental provable, it is a far more better explanation and might actually be the reality but it is still an hypothesis and could also be wrong.

3. The harmony suggests patterns not intelligence, we know patterns can arise naturally without any intelligence from our earthly experiences.

4. No, no proof, its just an hypothesis and could be very wrong but it has the best chance of being right.

princefunmmy:
these people Just forgot this part of the bible

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Rev 22:18-19

Well I guess if there names were written in The BOOK before gan sef

Thank Goodness they are not men then...

If someone says his or her best food is soaking garri, would you ask whether its normal or would you say something terrible happened to him or her when they were younger?...

What is your business about other peoples sexuality?

Does it affect you in anyway?

lordnicklaus:
The Sumerians were both religious and scientifically inclined. Both concepts (religion and science) were realised on the dawn of civilisation. So, aren't we right when we say they are siblings? I am quite awed at your discretion @ donnffd. but your third point seems to evade my comprehension. Please expantiate on that. cc donnffd

Yes, i do agree that some civilizations had the two side by side, but there have been evidence that foragers about 40,000 thousands ago had some form of religion. This way predates written records or any scientific thinking or method, hence why i termed it our first attempt at understanding the Natural world.

my third point was pointing to how religion has evolved over the course of human history, and how it has lost its hold on the question of "HOW". It also cannot answer the question of "WHY" because it is too fragmented and too subjective to provide any objective reason why the universe exists, so it fails in both questions.

Religion however has played a huge role in human history and should be credited, it has done alot of good and terrible things but it was an invention by humans and that tells alot about the human mind.

Even though i agree with majority of what you said, i must say i disagree with certain aspects.

1. There was a line where you said "The sole purpose for the disbelief of Atheism is the multitude of crimes committed in the name of religion. ". I disagree with this, Even if all religions were peaceful, there would still be atheists and thats because the sole purpose for disbelief is the lack of evidence.

2. I also disagree with Religion and Science being siblings. I would say Science is a prodigy of Religion, it is a child sort of. Religion is our first attempt in understanding the natural world and precisely because of that, it is our worst attempt, Science builds on the failures and errors of religion and it is better for it.

3. There is another line in which you state that Religion tries to know how and why the universe exist. I also disagree with this, Religion has always focused on human life and how we are supposed to conduct, and even though it make claims about the Natural world, it has no basis in reality and there is no reason to take it at face value.


While we might not be able to know as of now what was before or even caused the big bang, the idea of a conscious intelligence is a far fetched one and there is no reasonable evidence to suggest this is true.

AlfaSeltzer:
How can another human from another continent come and deceive you into beating up your children and perpetuating ignorance in Africa

We are suffering from the stupidity of our parents

Stop "respecting" your parents. You are more intelligent than them.

Leave them, if they misbehave for the sake of a foreign doG

Just because your parents believe in something you dont doesnt make them stupid, Just because you have more exposure and maybe knowledge about the physical world than they do doesnt mean they are stupid. You cant just blame and insult your parents like that and even go ahead to promoting disrespect!

This is alittle far fetched.

I am sure your parents wants the best for you and they most certainly thought this way was the best way to impact in you, they might be wrong but that doesnt mean they are stupid.

Please, Respect your parents

Kedro:
It is true there are many famous stories in the Holy Bible,while some believe this stories,others take it as mere myth.
When I read this bible stories my imagination runs wild,and I can't but wish I was there to witness them live.

Which bible story would you love to be RECREATED.

I would so much love to watch the parting of the Red Sea.

I would love the parting of the red sea also...

Kalatium:
To understand these concepts let's first define them

Atheism can be defined both narrowly and broadly.

1.(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
2.(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).

Agnosticism : The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable,unproven, or unprovable.

Theist believes that God exist with evidences from their religious text whereas Atheist believe that logic and rational thinking (and even evidence from science shows no proof of God existence.
The truth is that science cannot prove or disprove God existence. The existence of deities is unknown. Seeing this, the agnostics are more correct than the atheist.
Therefore to me, Agnostics are way better than atheist.

What's your view on this, anything contrary?

You also forgot to group the types of agnostics

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism":

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism":

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism:

The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest.


NB: Most atheists i know fall into the weak agnosticism...

shadeyinka:
Hello my Friend,
Long time indeed. I decided to use my time more for helping others on NL rather than the endless debates. Occasionally, I chip in a word or two but I know that nothing in this world apart from Gods grace can change an Atheist.

I know that Adolf Hitler was born and raised a catholic but towards the last decade of his life, he was more of a mixture of an occultist + atheist. His goal was the build up of the Arian rase. Jews were a group of pests unfortunately who control a chunk of the economy.

I have actually met some atheists who believe in the occult (weird isn't it?). I am not sure there was anything religious about Hitler.

I could be wrong however: I hope someone can furnish the date of the last time Hitler went for a mass or had a confessing with a priest. The selective genocide had nothing to do with Catholicism: don't forget that others in line were the soviet block and Africans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

One day, I might throw a piece in for Atheists and Agnostics to ponder about.

Shalom

Yea, the tantrums are just so much, i hardly participate also, just once in a while...

As for Hitler's beliefs, we cant be sure what he believed or what he did not, but one thing is certain, he used religion(and when i mean religion, i mean organised belief which also includes Nazism, Fascism and so on) to push his agendas. Even if you remove Hitler from the circle, his foot soldiers who were the ones carrying out his orders were either Catholics or Protestants and they did those things anyways because they believed so strongly that they were right, that is the effect religion has on the human mind, and Hitler used it to his advantage.

ichommy:
Nah Hustling carry me commot NL. I don come back sha. How are U doing Sir?

I am great bro, We are in the Change o!

ichommy:
Brother

Ichommy, see my fam, where have you been bro?

shadeyinka:
North Korea is a place any one with choice wouldn't want to live in. Your freedom is clamped by the spirit of atheism.

Hitler too was an atheist!

Hi bro, longest time, where did you run to?

and by the way, hitler was not an atheist, he was a catholic who believed the jews were to be blamed for the death of Christ and hence the holocaust.

Even if he was(which he wasnt), he didnt do the terrible things he did in the name of atheism, he did them in the name of one form of religion or the other.

IamProfessorval:
Pop corn and pepsi? Haba Bros, which village are you from?

Look well at the cans, you should find it

Proudlyngwa:
Yes my thought is on the destination, if the destination is futile, why the effort on the journey, some people are most result oriented than process oriented.
If the result of 1% input is equal to 99% input, whybthe stress

Ok simple, kill yourself...(saying that in mild irritation, i dont actually mean that)

GrizzlyBear:
There is no objective essence. The description you gave of the essence of life is subjective. The contents of the story line of life is vanity and futility. All we are ever going to do is struggle and survive, and if we are lucky, some happy moments in between, but these happy moments pale in comparison to the sad and painful moments that we'll all experience, and then at the end we die.

What's the point of commencing this journey when you already know that it has a bleak end?

Ofcourse i know that, just seems the OP is relentless, so i just gave him straight

Proudlyngwa:
I am simply trying to find the essence of life and living from a logical perspective not a religious angle.
And am seeing it more of as a destinationless journey. If there is no afterlife, why am I putting effort to be good, if both the good and the bad both have the same ending.

I think you are spending more time thinking about the destination rather than about the journey itself, The essence of life is to Live and let live, the process of living is what you should be focused on and not what happens after its over, a movie is not judged by the contents of the credit scene rather it is judge by the content of the storyline itself.

The journey of life is what counts and not the destination, enjoying this journey and also helping other do the same should be the ultimate purpose of life, and even though there is no destination, atleast it would be worth the ride.

Proudlyngwa:
That is not what I meant.
My main question still remains what is the essence of living and in that process living a moral life.
A car is built, with the end product being to be driven.
Food is cooked with the end process being to be eaten.
Animals copulate with the end process being reproduction.
People marry and reproduce but to me that is no purpose .
I believe I have a purpose in life, but if after everything when I die , all about me ( not my generation ) why should I continue.
As for the making enemies with society, what if I can get away with it till death ,what will be the essence for my victims if they feel death is not a justifiable punishment.

Sincerely, i dont fully understand you but i would try and take a crack at it...

We give our own lives meaning... its has simple as that, we are cosmic accidents, yes but that doesnt mean life is hopeless, life could have meaning, your own meaning, whatever gives you joy and fulfillment, find it and make that the meaning of your life.

As for being moral, being good just for goodness sake is the best feeling one can have, it truly speaks highly of the individual who does good not for some kind of reward but because he chooses to be good and moral, but if you want to be bad, be sure you wont get away with it, because the society wont allow it and even if you get away with it, you just die without any impact on the human race except for destruction, is that really a legacy you want to leave behind?

Proudlyngwa:
That doesn't answer the question.
Why should I be good if I know, at the end my goodness does not benefit me( in totality ) .
What are the essence of morals , charity et al . if at the end I cease to exist. Why should I live a positively quality life.

You ddnt ask about morality, you asked about the essence of life and why live if it would end

Anyways, to answer your second question, if you go about doing what you like without regards for others, you would make enemies of the society and would surely regret. Why spend the rest of your small life in jail?

Proudlyngwa:
What is the essence of living.
If all leads to death without any reward or punishment, why don't I just end it now( note I have no intention of ending it now) .
Why do I have to bring kids into this world if the end product is be born, eat sleep, grow, work ,reproduce, grow old and die.
What really is the essence of living.

Please let this be from a logical point, not a religious point.

Why watch a movie if you know it would still end?

Why eat a very delicious meal if you know it would still finish?

Why listen to a song if you know it would end?


You see, just because something would end, doesnt mean you shouldnt do it!

The duration of a thing is not what is important, rather the quality and the feeling felt right in the moment of that thing. So live life to the fullest, be good and kind, and let your brief light shine so brightly when it can.

LiberaDeus:
I have read a lot on DNA and life. Nothing seems convincing concerning the origin of the first cell and DNA.

I thought your explanation could throw light on something I haven't seen .

I will read more on it. But as I said that is the only entity that throws in the need for a designer, every other thing can be traced to physical and quantum mechanics and it's effects.

I dont think you have read about the RNA World Hypothesis.

Now this hypothesis seeks to find out the origins of the first replicating molecule not the first cell, because it is most likely that a self replicating molecule arose before a self-organizing entity ever emerged.

DNA cannot be the first self-replicating molecule because it needs enzymes to produce new proteins and you cannot have DNA without proteins, so you have the chicken-egg problem, which came first, the protein or DNA.

Many scientists were forced to drop DNA as a candidate for the first self-replicating molecule and look towards RNA, it has the ability to store information for coding new proteins and in some cases has the ability to act as an enzyme also thereby suggesting that some RNA molecules could make more RNA molecules, if that was the case, RNA replicators would have had no need for proteins. They could do everything themselves.

Over the years, the evidence for this hypothesis has grown significantly and very soon probably in the nearest future, we might create an RNA molecule in the lab that self-replicate. Now note that this isnt a living thing, but it gives you an idea of how the earliest and most primitive life form might have arosen.

LiberaDeus:
Kindly explain how that DNA controls the growth of biological life forms. Doesn't it seem so coincidental that they self replicate into cells and the cells intelligently organize themselves.

Please take your time and explain, I am all ears

I have things to do, i cant start explain, but a good google search and a good source can quench that thirst i am sure.

I would say this though, We dont fully understand every thing, and that is not a bad thing, it just means we should continue to strife for knowledge, but a terrible mistake would be to assume intelligence to a phenomena just simply because of the fact that you dont understand it.