₦airaland Forum

I also think there is some form of extraterrestrial life. If there isn't one now there will most likely be one in the future. The universe demonstrably sustains life, the right conditions ought to exist at several different places and times. I think our chances of coming across alien life may be related to the fecundity of life in the universe. Given how large the universe is, life would have to be quite plentiful for us to come across ET in this our cubicle. Of course we can simply get lucky/unlucky and find it even though it's rare, but that would require the alien life to be quite close by. Above a certain number of light years away any alien life might as well be in another universe.

We have a better chance of coming across alien life if that life is also intelligent and at least as advanced as we are so that it can send and receive radio signals. If it is not intelligent then other than by sighting it we can only have circumstantial evidence of its existence. Obviously the likelihood that there is intelligent life is much lower than the likelihood that there is life, since intelligence is evolved and evolution is random and won't always lead to intelligence. I think that we will probably come across unintelligent life first given that there should be more of it than intelligent life. We will probably not see it for a while after learning of its existence though.

On the subject of evolution, sometimes I wonder whether life, once formed, must necessarily evolve (and develop a survival instinct too). If it must not, we should keep an eye out for stuff like RNA and cell fossils too. This sort of complicates the task of finding extraterrestrial life.

About Mars, the jury is still out on whether it can support life. However, I don't imagine that there is a civilization that is anything like ours on Mars. If there were, we should have heard from them by now.

And about historic reports of alien visitation, well...I have my doubts. Lots of them.

Ajibam:
Nay! Because God is not created from exploding atoms.

So it both fits and doesn't fit. Lol. See how your God has made defending him so confusing.

Ajibam:
That's why is an assumption(your assumption). Unfortunately, the assumption is wrong, you don't assume things about God based on the level of your own reasoning,Nobody created the mind of God and yet his thoughts are higher than ours.

So the criterion does fit God?

Is that how you call it?
Anyways, am just throwing you a lifeline out of your miseries.
Jesus loves you!

Okay. Cool.

Ajibam:
How is God not sure of His thoughts because of the fiascos(failure) you see in the world?
The failures in the world is as a result of man's iniquity, God was perfect and supreme in his thoughts to the extent that there's no defect in his creations..
Surprisingly, to show how perfect his thoughts are, he has made a way of escape from the consequence of the failures caused by man, the way is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Come to him today and stop being ignorant.

The argument is that we can only trust our thoughts if there is an intelligence that gave us our minds for the purpose of thinking. I'm assuming that God's thoughts do not meet this criterion. Nobody created the mind of God, right?

Are you preaching?

It really is quite dumb. Your confidence in the degree of correspondence between your thoughts and reality has no effect on what reality turns out to be. If there really is no God it makes no difference to that reality that you are unable to say with any degree of certainty that there is, or is no, God. The flimsy argument of the author is that "I am sure of my thoughts, therefore my mind was created for thinking by another mind", which frankly is coterminous with horse sheet.

Interestingly, when we try to make sure that we are not dreaming or under an illusion and attempt to devise checks, we don't check for whether there is a God who gave us minds for thinking. If I asked you OP how you are sure that you're not under the illusion that you have a nairaland account, I can bet that you won't say you know that you are not under an illusion because you have a mind which was made for thinking. We recognise what illusions are, meaning that we recognise that we can't always be sure of our thoughts. We also perform reality checks without having recourse to the issue of who created our minds and for what purpose, meaning that there are ways of certifying your thoughts outside of knowing that it was created for thinking. In a godless world we just might use these.

Other pieces of foolishness in the argument include the assumption that we can only think correctly if our minds were made for thinking, (how am I typing correctly with hands that were designed for grasping?) and that our ability to think is at an acceptable level for a mind whose purpose is to think.

And of course there is the ever present question of how well a God explains the things which we say it explains. Since Mr. Lewis is claiming that we can only be sure of our thoughts if there is an intelligence who gave us minds for thinking, he must be willing to concede that God is not sure of its thoughts (which would explain the fiasco we see in the world). How does a God who is not sure of its thoughts create minds for the purpose of thinking?

Is that real gold or spiritual gold?

Don't you believe in destiny? If there is a man somewhere that God has earmarked for you, then all you have to do is wait. The will of God must come to pass.

FOLYKAZE:
It seem you dont know what ignostic atheism is.

There are two sides to it. There may be more but these are the two sides:

1. I dont know what God is therefore I dont need to belief in it existence. Atheism out of ignornce.

2. I cannot accept this God because what you told me about it is not fatual. Atheism out of inconsistency of God.


Ignostic atheist might not know about Yemoja. Well if I explain to them what I mean by Yemoja, they might choose to accept it or throw it out base on reason.

This reason though can be stressed over and over.

Smh. This is the misunderstanding that makes you think you can address Ignosticism by explaining who Yemoja is.

So it can be reasonable to deny that Yemoja exists?

FOLYKAZE:
that is after I explain to them what Yemoja is.

Lol. Don't you think they would have taken Yemoja, and every other deity, into consideration before branding themselves ignostic atheists?

FOLYKAZE:
Ignostic atheists do not just disbleieve in God. They debelieve in the God that is vague, inconsistent and irrational evaluations of what God is. They take their time to evalute what a theist mean by God unlike atheism which disbleieve in everything that has to do with God.

Ignostic atheism is very like spiritual atheism. I dont believe in God defined as a man living behind the wind but I define God as a natural entity and force. As you can see we demand for clarification before accpeting or disclodging God.

So ignostic atheists have to believe in clear, consistent and rational deities like Yemoja, then?

FOLYKAZE:
They have foresight. Not like you that hate everything called God.

They ask you to define what you mean by God before they can tell you their decision. Implication of this reveal that they accept some breakdown meaning of God and can dislodge some at will.

Atheism is disbelieve in God. It does not continue with definition of the word God. Therefore we assume you disbelieve in everything that is God.

These people claim to be ignostic atheists. Ask them what they are atheists to. I'm sure you know that atheism is an incoherent position.

FOLYKAZE:
Bait?

Ignosticism no definite position. The word is from ignorance. They most importantly ask you back what you mean by God

But they must have some particular god in mind sir. Ask then which "god" they are referring to when they say that the term "god" is meaningless. I'm sure the gallery in a theatre is not meaningless.

Why are there no poor people in heaven if it is so important to have rich and poor people?

I suppose you are trying to bait me. Lol. You are no Diego Costa.

Please ask the OP which god he is ignostic to.

Divinerspell:
Hi finofaya, how accurate was my palm reading?

It remains to be seen. The parts involving the past and present were off though.

onetrack:
Judging by your palm, I can state that masturbati0n is in your near future.

Lol. You may not jack me off. Thanks.

Horrible officiating from Mike Dean.

Another fake result for Mou.

Hello, Divinerspell. What does the future hold for this palm?

chiedu7:
The bible is about the Jesus redeeming man from the kingdom of Darkness due to our sin.

John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.


Hosea 13:14
I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues;


Now in those harry potter books where is that?

From "The Philosopher's Stone", these are about how good is better than evil:

"That is because it is a monstrous thing, to slay a unicorn," said Firenze. "Only one who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, would commit such a crime. The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenseless to save yourself, and you will have but a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips." (15.155)

"Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin," said Hagrid darkly. "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You-Know-Who was one." (5.199)

"Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it… (17.31)"

From "The Order of the Phoenix", about Harry Potter's mandate:

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies...."

Where in the bible are these?

johnydon22:


You can imagine, cooking pot calling kettle black.

One has giants, talking donkeys, talking snakes, people flying to the sky on flaming chariots, waters dividing, people walking on water, other flying up, unicorns, satyrs

the other has

People flying on brooms, giants, shooting fire from sticks, riding dragons, turning invisible, turning back time, talking snakes, flying motorcycles, Unicorns.

and the adherent of the former is accusing the later of being bad

We haven't heard the rest of the absurdities yet .

HP isn't even advertised as reality, the writer says it's fiction. Children reading it are content to let fiction remain fiction. The bible on the other hand is supposed to be as real as it gets. Which one is likelier to be taken seriously and acted out? Somehow these people think fiction is more dangerous.

There will be more absurdities, maybe up to category 5 absurdities like "known unknown".

chiedu7:

Did you listen to the ex-witch warning people about harry potter?
Did u listen to the follow author say JK Rowling sold her soul to satan?

If it's evil it cannot be of God.

If you are of God, you will not say what u said.

Are the books not about the triumph of love over hatred? Of good over evil? Did you hear what the scribes and pharisees had to say about your Jesus? Or what Jews have to say about him? Be objective, if you can.

HP is more child friendly than that bible. There are so many more sinners and spooky characters children could easily emulate in the bible. There are people who take even Satan for a role model. If they had not been exposed to a bible that would never have happened. I think children are better off reading Harry Potter.

I think it's a deep sense of respect and wonder that even inspires science. It's odd to say that finding scientific explanation for a phenomenon precludes one's appreciation of it. For the theist all a scientific explanation does is increase the number of things god can take credit for, so science is actually a plus for god (some of them). This your so called test is ill considered and seems more like an afterthought.

lucksonlight:
u can answer dat question by urself

Okay Bro.

lucksonlight:
Yea, nd dats because d pagan activities can b felt without doubt

And there is room for doubt in the Christian activities?

lucksonlight:
. If i had referred u 2 miracles, signs nd wonders in church u will say dey were arranged

Lol. Like I was going to accept the pagan practices. You just felt that you could make a stronger case with them, be honest.

lucksonlight:
.. For hw long would u continue to lie to urself? U cannot tell me dat u re african nd u hvn't seen anytin supernatural in dis continent......i rather rest my case...nd allow ur conscience do its work

At least you can now see how God is controversial. You're a christian trying to prove that Yahweh exists by referring me to pagan practices.

lucksonlight:
u can't compare natGeo wit wat dis folks do in d village

NatGeo is orders of magnitude sicker. The village people dey learn book.

Ask her where it says so in the bible. If she manages to show you, then you have to show her verses like lev 11 or deut 23. Checkmate

lucksonlight:
wat do u hv 2 say abt pple playing wit dangerous animals?

Have you seen NatGeo? It doesn't take witchcraft to play with beasts.