₦airaland Forum

YourCoffin:
Death is a blessing so life should be the opposite.

Na so them dey take market coffin?

truthman2012:
Thanks for your efforts. But what or who is responsible for the existence of that particle, which picture you saw?

I don't know. Either it is whoever is responsible for all of creation or its nobody, I guess. Such a person would be responsible for the Higgs boson and for sand. Is the Higgs boson any more proof that such a person exists than sand is?

truthman2012:
Are you saying the journalist quoted the scientists out of context? Prove.

Proof? What you need is to read more about the subject. This is not a matter of context.

The Higgs boson was theorised in 1964 and it wasn't referred to as the God particle until 29 years later, in 1993 in the title of a book by a physicist about the particle. When asked why he referred to it as the God particle, he said that his publisher rejected the other names for being too unimaginative. Higgs himself finds the name God particle embarrassing.

Read the full article here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

This is how CERN described the discovery of the particle:

On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model.

No "God particle".

When giving the Nobel prize to Higgs, "God particle" was also mentioned at all:

On 8 October 2013 the Nobel prize in physics (link is external) was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider."

http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/higgs-boson

truthman2012:
Haha haha! So you did see the link in the OP? No wonder you have been saying what you are saying.

Look, that article was written by one Hayley Dixon, a journalist, of The Telegraph. The words are hers, not any scientist's. I'm telling you that its the media that calls Higgs boson the God particle. I thought you'd bring an article by a physicist where the particle is also referred to as "God particle", instead you are busy showing me an article by a journalist.

truthman2012:
This is an extract from the article:



What next?

Lol. Provide the link to the article na.

truthman2012:
There is no reason why the media have to add anything, not even for sale. It is only an assumption of yours that they added God to it.

The particle is not God but the creation of God. The scientists knew it was only God that could create that thing you saw in the picture and that is why they name it 'God Particle'

I'm trying to tell you that scientists don't call it the God particle. They call it the Higgs particle or Higgs boson.

How can you be sure that life is pointless? There's still a lot you don't know about it. On the criteria of meaning, life is certainly better than non life, since life can possibly have meaning while you can't even speak of meaning or lack of it if there were no life. So if you don't like meaninglessness, you should avoid death.

truthman2012:
They quoted the statements by scientists, who in the course of study arived at Higgs discovery, the Nobel Prize winner.

The media is not a religious body, for what reason would they coin it? Can you define 'God Particle' in your word, stating what God has to do with it?

I mean Higgs' critics on this thread are the quacks.

They may have quoted other things, but they did not quote "God Particle". That one is their own contribution to the research.

The media is not a religious body, just as you are not a religious body (not literally anyway). They used God Particle because its catchier and more sellable.

I can only define God Particle as the popular name for the Higgs Boson. I can't state what God has to do with it, since I don't see what God has to do with it.

I thought the people on this thread were criticizing not the boson itself but the conclusion that the discovery of the Higgs Boson amounts to the discovery of God. If you don't want to hear from them either way you can even read what science, not the media, thinks of the particle.

plaetton:
Well, I do prefer that god is a subatomic particle that binds matter , than the raging schizophrenic genocidal maniac that infects and live in the psyches of most humans.

Lol. If he must exist, then I agree.

truthman2012 you are missing the point. The Higgs Boson has nothing to do with God. The name "God Particle" was coined for it by the media. You will agree that the media are not the Nobel prize winner you speak of and that any name they give to the particle is suspect. They are quacks, as you say. You therefore need to find out more about this particle before you declare it to be God.

Its too cold for beer to warm here. Make I try my hand for the OP.

Emusan:
The Bible may or may not be inspired by God – we haven’t proved it yet, one way or the other – but it is nonetheless a historical document. A document that has been dated, depending on which book of the Bible and who you ask, at between 1900 and 3500 years ago. No one, no matter how skeptical, dates any part of the Old Testament at later than 2000 years ago. So then it is an absolute fact that this is an ancient document.
We have vast multitudes of independent writings – not only in the New Testament, but throughout the world – which were written 2000 years ago and speak of the antiquity of many books of the Old Testament even then.
So let us look at some of the things in those books that only a God could have known. Things that no man has ever known, or could conceivably have known, until our century. For this would prove that someone greater than a man had written those books.
1. Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
This particular question demands of Job how the light was parted (by day into night) and how that light makes the east wind blow. Now we today, can answer that question. Job could not.
2. Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,.... Maps of the Earth from the times of Mesopotamia, when Job was most likely written, and even much later, portrayed a flat earth, sometimes round in the midst of an infinite ocean.
3. Job 38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
We didn’t “walk in search of the depth [of the sea] “the deepest part of the ocean, until 1875 when we discovered the deepest point on Earth, the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench (although we weren’t sure it was the deepest point until much later). We didn’t fully survey it until 1951. We didn’t actually “walk” in it until 1960! But how does this prove the existence of God? Simply the fact that in most ancient cultures, the ocean HAD no bottom! The Greek word abyss , used for the deep ocean, literally means “bottomless”! And 3500 years ago, only God could have known with such certainty that the ocean did in fact have a “depth”! In the same verse; Why would there be water pouring INTO the sea from underground – the sea is where water came from! And mankind for all his technological achievements didn’t discover underwater springs until 1949 – A.D.! Almost four millennium after Job was written! And even then, it wasn’t confirmed until 1960, and it wasn’t until 1979 that human beings first saw deep-sea springs with their own eyes!
4. Job 38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
Man didn’t measure the circumference (“breadth”) of the Earth with even remote accuracy until Eratosthenes did it in about 240 BC. But God knew exactly how large it was. For He sits “above the circle of it”.
5. Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
According to everyone before 570 BC, the Earth was flat. Even then, and for millennia afterwards, the Earth was held up by something. For the Greeks it was on the shoulders of the god Atlas. For the American-Indians it was supported on the back of a giant turtle. Other cultures believed it was on the back of a hog, water buffalo, snake, or elephant. These ideas had the delightful side-benefit of explaining earthquakes, since it logically follows the theory that if Earth was on an elephant’s back and the elephant itched, the Earth would move.
The idea of the Earth literally hanging on NOTHING – as in, an Earth in free-fall through space – was one that no ancient mind could have grasped. Newton’s famous “apple incident” gave us the first real clue as to how gravity operated to control bodies at great distances. But 3500 years ago? Only God could have known!
6. Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; As primitive man sought answers about the natural world, lightning became a part of his superstitions, his myths and his early religions.
For more
Http://thesimpleanswers.com/2009/08/08/does-god-exist/

1. This is a question. Where is the answer to this question? Is it in the bible? How are we to know that God knows the answer?

2. There is no place “above” the earth. “Above” would only make sense when used to describe an earth on which humans lived on just one side. Such an earth is much more likely to be flat. The use of the word “circle” in the verse suggests that it is a flat earth that is being described.

3. There are indeed deep sea springs. These springs however are not the source of the water in the oceans. I don’t think it is out of place to imagine that the sea has a bottom. After all, they imagined the earth to be finite in size. How could it have contained an infinite ocean?

4. Another question whose answer is not found in the bible. How are we to know that God knows the answer?

5. The earth does not “hang”. Its movement is not a free fall either, as alleged in the commentary.

6. What does this even mean?

I like the sound it makes, I like watching her reaction to it, it feels nice to the touch cos its so soft (but you can't spank boobs ). Mostly its just instinct sha.

Acekidc4:
Can u hear urself rite nw!! Dis is d most Ridiculously statement I ve ever heard in a long time!! Am a Christian bt wat u just spew out is just Total Nonsense!!!

Is it? Heaven and Earth can't be the same. One must be better and the other worse.

Flytefalls:
The experience of s3x is non comparable, between individuals and between the s3xes. Like comparing a tuna sandwich's experience of being eaten to that of a banana's. There is no standardised unit of measure for both experiences of pleasure; especially as the two have never known any different. Leave it yeah...

It is possible to know how much someone enjoys it, from their behaviour. Kind of how you can tell who is in more pain between any two random people in who are in pain. You don't need to know what exactly the pain feels like for each person in order to decide. I know its not exact though.

All things being equal, I think its women who enjoy it more. The mere facts that they can go longer and orgas.m longer are dead giveaways.

Misogynist2014:
You must agree with me that your argument on nothing is inconclusive to be conclusive and inconclusive to be concluded. Here is a link on scientists(physicists) argument on nothing, neither could any go home with victory. I enjoyed the conversation by trying to replace nothing with God http://m.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

The debate is not about whether nothing currently exists, but about whether it is possible for nothing to exist, and the exact nature of such nothingness; is nothingness empty space or is it a quantum vacuum or is it a closed spherical spacetime of zero radius? Is it something other than the above? Are there physical laws in such a state? Etc. Everybody is agreed that a state of nothingness is incompatible with us and the billions of other things in the universe so we take it that are not currently in a state of nothingness.

If you replace "nothing" with "God" in that article you end up with the question "is it possible for God to exist?", which is quite different from "does God exist?". I'm sure your purpose here is to show that God exists, not that his existence is possible.

I have actually argued for the existence of God, using something more that I've used nothing. You can have this link, though I know you must have come across it, you can still go over it because it is short and straight to the point https://www.nairaland.com/2010775/absolute-proof-gods-existence


On the use of faith, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. No dictionary has a definition as perfect as this, anything the Bible touches, It touches with class. A lot of people are allergic to faith because they don't have access to this definition. The God of Bible did set good presidents with his mighty works and HIS love for a well dated history(GOD OF HISTORY) and also HIS prophecies which are expected of HIM, which doesn't make HIM look like a fairytale, following HIM through faith is not that foolish, is it?

There are so many arguments for and against God. Of course you probably adopt all the arguments for God's existence. Proof is another matter entirely, which you have made even more complex by invoking faith. When you say faith is evidence, I want to know whose faith is evidence of God.

Obviously it can't be my faith, since I lack faith and if I have faith I don't need evidence. So it has to be another person's faith. Now this other person, whose faith provided the evidence for him? We can go on like this until the last person, at which point the proof of God will no longer be faith. The reason for this is that this last person, being the first person whose faith convinced another person, must have gotten his own faith from some other type of evidence.

What is that evidence and why can't we have it instead?

Calling faith evidence of God is just a big merry go round.

But it doesn't matter anyway. I'm not asking for proof of God.

Here's a further example of the sort of foolishness you can get into by referring to "nothing" as if it's an object:

"What is nothing? Macbeth answered this question with admirable concinnity: “Nothing is, but what is not.” My dictionary puts it somewhat more paradoxically—“nothing (n.): a thing that does not exist.” Although Parmenides, the ancient Eleatic sage, declared that it was impossible to speak of what is not—thereby violating his own precept—the plain man knows better. Nothing is popularly held to be better than a dry martini, but worse than sand in the bedsheets. A poor man has it, a rich man needs it, and if you eat it for a long time, it’ll kill you. On occasion, nothing could be further from the truth, but it is not clear how much further. It can be both black and white all over at the same time. Nothing is impossible for God, yet it is a cinch for the rankest incompetent. No matter what pair of contradictory properties you choose, nothing seems capable of embodying them. From this it might be concluded that nothing is mysterious. But that would only mean that everything is obvious—including, presumably, nothing." (From one book like that by Jim Holt)

I'm not aware that anybody was seeking for proof of the absence of anything, which is what nothing refers to. It is evident that there is something. You don't need science to know this. Similarly, the question of God's existence is not one which we have to wait for science to answer. I'm not sure science can even answer it. The absence of scientific proof of God's non existence is not proof that God exists. I agree with you though that it doesn't mean that God is imaginary.

The same logic that tells us that something exists also fails to convince me that there is a God. I think it does not convince you either, otherwise you would not speak of faith.

I got this from a book, its a little joke on the issue of faith:

”The argument goes something like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’

”‘But,’ says Man, ‘The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’

”‘Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

”‘Oh, that was easy,’ says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. (Apparently he succeeded at this proof too.)

If God appeared in person to you, would you say that you have proof of God's existence or would you still accept his existence on faith alone?

I guess it is easier to know that God exists than that he doesn't, since all it'll take to know that he exists is for him to reveal himself to you. To know that he doesn't exist, you'd have to go to the ends of the universe, like you say. This is based on the assumption that the God in question is not everywhere in the universe. Once you say that the God is everywhere, one can sit in his room and declare that there is no God, or at least a God that is everywhere.

The God of the bible is said to be everywhere, among other things, so one can say that he does not exist. But I'm suspecting that you are open to the possibility of a God other than Yahweh being the true one, since you think this God might be found at a place we haven't explored, unlike Yahweh who is allegedly everywhere.

obongproff:
Sorry. Did u say "duty"? As in like house chores kind of duty? Is dat wot works for you or for d ppl u know?

Lol. Sounds terrible I guess.

I hear our parents and their parents and parents parents etc did it like that. Shey they say people were more conservative in those days or something. They only did it to procreate. This philosophy of sex for procreation is the basis of the no sex before marriage rule. I'm merely pointing out that sexual compatibility becomes an issue when you forget that sex is for procreation, not recreation.

Seeing it as a duty doesn't work for me.

I think you can only determine sexual compatibility if you know what it feels like to have sex. Without that knowledge, there will be nothing for you to base your judgments on in the discussion. For example, can someone who's never had sex before claim to have a high sex drive? Or if you're a lady with an unusually dry vagina, how else will you find out other than by attempting sex? What about how you like it done; it varies among people and you'll just have to discover yours. By the time you do however, you're already married.

Merely discussing sexual incompatibility without the background knowledge will leave you scratching the surface.

I think if you approach sex as a duty though, you can manage any incompatibilities between your spouse and you.

@sinequanon

You titled this OP like a seasoned journalist. Nice title. Misleading though.

The technological advancements we have made are what allow us to know that we have to conserve our environment. So its not that we overrate technology, its that we act as if we now don't know that we have to conserve our environment.

The advancements also allow us to know that we can improve the lives of a greater number of people than we previously could. Yet we are not focusing our efforts on that, as much we can.

What would you say our basic moral questions are, in addition to the two (I think) you have hinted at?

You are supposed to cherry pick the bible. It is the Devil that is making you identify these contradictions.

AndreRose:
Having had d privilege of goin tru dis lil piece of urs, I must really commend you for dis. Ppl dnt knw a tin abt being a lawyer and its so disheartening weneva dey mk such outrageous comment(lawyers are liars) . I hope dey cn learn alil frm ur write up. Or beta off try to become a lawyer,den dey wil knw how its done. Once again, nice piece.

Thanks. I doubt they are interested in what we say in our defence though. One guy here even said that we can't help lying despite having the truth on our side in a suit. Its all good.

correctguy0900:
dats wot u will tell me as a lawyer when I ask for ur services. are u also saying dat lawyers should only represents dose who innocent in court? dere are no such lawyers doing wot u try picture here. I v been with so many lawyers, no one refuses a case upon d knowledge dat his party is guilty.

I didn't say a lawyer should refuse a case solely because the client-to-be admits guilt. We aren't even allowed to do that, by our rules. Where do you think I said such a thing?

You asked whether a lawyer should defend your innocence after you have committed an offence, to which I replied that you have no innocence to be defended when you have committed an offence. You only have the punishment to receive.

In such a case, the lawyer is there just to ensure that you have a fair trial.

There are aspects to law other than the criminal though. Some lawyers don't even engage in criminal litigation.

correctguy0900:
are u saying dat should I murder somebody, a Christian lawyer is not suppose to defend my innocence even when he knows am guilty?

If you are guilty, there is no innocence to defend. Just go and collect your death sentence.

goodgood2:
You've just lied to cover their lies.

Which of my claims is a lie?

theunusualmoon:
Will they choose to submit and worship GOD or will they still question GOD's authority?

Don't be suprised,with the kind of arguments they put up, I think some of them may even be willing to join Lucifer's army.

What do you think?

Yahweh? I'd have to find a way to decimate my soul.

But you know that objections to his morality cannot be settled merely because he is shown to exist. The only thing that'll change is that I'd discard my atheistic leanings (not that it can be helped anyway).

philips70:

Did I just read Izinyon? Ibori's lawyer? Politicians lawyer born again? Mba, not possible. Maybe outside Nigeria.

Lol. Those who know him personally will tell you as much. Besides, Ibori's acquittal appears to be largely an issue of the FHC judge, Justice Awokulehin. The Court of Appeal has since overturned the acquittal and we eagerly await Ibori's return to Nigeria.