₦airaland Forum

Is this a joke? Your OP is dripping imbecilitie

alexis:
finofaya



It doesn't prove consciousness. Having experiences is a measurement of what consciousness is but you don't know what it is. Assuming you are giving me a verbal proof of consciousness - will a verbal proof of God be enough as well?



Again, I am not talking about the experiences or effects of consciousness; that is all you have explained - I am asking you what it is?



It is subjective: we see different things, think different thoughts, feel different emotions, hold different values. All you are doing is saying consciousness proof is because we are aware. You are yet to tell me what it is; what is it's origin?

Chairman, good night.

When you said that your being here, thinking, is not proof that you are conscious, I knew you were lost. Please go and research these issues properly. Serious people don't even ask for proof that consciousness exists. You can confirm for yourself. I felt I should oblige you and this is what you are saying.

alexis: I exist whether I think or not - that doesn't prove consciousness. I know that I am black has nothing to do with consciousness either.

I said "you are aware that you are". That is the proof, bro. The statement "I exist" suffices also. If consciousness did not exist, nothing could be aware of anything.

My point is simple - the evidence of consciousness is subjective and is possibly not realistic either. To a scientist, it doesn't exist and can't be proven in a lab.

You prove consciousness every time you think, feel, perceive etc. Its funny, really. Every time you try to prove it, you have proven it. Every time you try to disprove it, you have proven it. When you decide to go to the lab to prove it, you have proven it. When you say that it is subjective, you have proven it. It's basically all up in your face. What is subjective about consciousness? Does it exist for some people and not others or what?

You know, saying that consciousness is subjective ,i.e., not actually true, means that everything that is dependent on consciousness, such as your belief in God, is equally untrue.

So, if you use the standard of proving consciousness; you should know that I can use the same standard to prove God

Frankly, I'd love to see that proof.

alexis: So, if God can be proven; what is the fuss all about?

The fuss is about how God has not been proven and yet people act as if he has. You have built a system on him, when you cannot demonstrate that he exists.

You just said above that God can be proven but you are saying her that we cannot prove Him again. Remember the question I asked you earlier? What is consciousness? Can you prove it?

You said that there are things that we all believe in even tho we cannot prove them. I then said that if God is one of those things, it would be correct to say that there is no evidence for God. If there were evidence, we would prove him at once, wouldn't we?

Of course I have. I don't believe the Bible because it said so. I will speak authoritatively for the New Testament. Every single claim made in the new testament can be traced to the earliest manuscripts that were used to compile the Bible. So, I take the New Testament account word for it because it tallies up with history which can be traced and verified. I visited the new testament museum in the US where some of the earliest manuscripts dating back to the 2nd century were compared with what we have in the present day Bible; if you re-construct them word for word; you will have about 99.6% accuracy to what you have in the Bible.

That's some good work, but what you have said amounts to cross checking the bible with itself. I meant you, alexis, have you given the issue of God being principled any thought yourself? You know we have to validate religious books with our observations of the world. If we validated a religious book with itself, every religious book would be valid. For the religious book to be true, whatever it states must be obtainable in reality so that you could verify it by looking at reality. Haven't you wondered how people came to know God before the bible was written? The things that you see in the bible must have been there for them to see, even without the bible. So look outside the bible and try to see how principled God is.

God attributes is what He describes for us. For example, He claims that He will never lie. So, if there is evidence that He lies; then He is going against His nature and attribute.

Lol. If he says that he doesn't lie, and you see evidence that he has lied, it means that he was being true his nature when he lied by saying that he doesn't lie.

You want a world where we are all robots? Will you like your kids to do everything and anything you say no matter what you tell them to do?

What makes your life worth living; free will or freedom from pain? Any human being who lacks free will but who is guaranteed not to ever experience suffering will live a happier life than you. Besides, the issue is not whether we should have free will, but whether we can have free will when we were made by an all powerful God who has forseen everything we are going to do and will not hesitate to change our paths.

Please read the Bible some more for more understanding. These are the laws set aside by Moses for the children of Israel. There is no where it claims that if you don't accept Judaism or Christianity; you should be killed and teaches Christians should do the same. Please be a lil more honest

Read Exodus 22:20. I didn't make it up. The 10 commandments come from the old testament too, so you shouldn't pick one law out of the OT and leave out the other.

There is no denying that and you are right. People follow the teachings of their religions. It is always good to give deep thoughts about the ideas and freedoms we want to endorse. For example, a man and a man can't produce a child yet they want to have the right to adopt a child. Going further, if 90% of the world were homosexuals; how long would we exist as a culture and race? These are not religious questions but rather grass-root questions that we should not be ashamed of discussing.

Thanks for the honesty, really. Let's not add homosexuality to this discussion just yet.

It is not my expectation Bros. God has set His expectations of what He wants from me - Treat others as you expect to be treated - that is the golden rule in the Bible.

What I was hoping you would see is that God does not have to obey any rules.

The Bible doesn't teach hate for gays Bros - the act of homosexuality is what the Bible discourages.

You are forgetting the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, where homosexuals were rewarded with death.

alexis:
Definition is a label that describes consciousness but it doesn't explain it or tells us what it actually is. I am a human being but that doesn't tell you anything about who I am.

Going further - what actually is consciousness? Can you see it? Can you measure or test for it in a lab? What tangible evidence is there or consciousness?

You think therefore you are. And you are aware that you are. That is the proof of consciousness.

ptase:
Evolution is a lie!!!!!

How so?

alexis:
I didn't ask you to define it - I said what is it?

I don't quite follow. It is what the definition says it is.

alexis: What is the difference between that and my statement?

The difference is that I didn't say that God cannot be proven.

My point here is that there are several things we all believe in that we can't explain or prove. So, your statement that there is no evidence of God doesn't hold water

What things? Anyway, if God is one thing that we cannot prove, it is correct to say that there is no evidence for him.

I told you, the Christian God as evidenced in the Bible

Have you given it any thought yourself, or do you just take the bible's word for it?

Of course it matters - it matters what He says, what He does, what He said He will do etc. Depending on how you define evil - I believe God is supreme

I don't think it matters to him. As long as he is our creator, he can have whatever other attributes. Like you say, he is supreme. It is immaterial to his nature if he is for example, jealousy prone or known to keep grudges.

You want the freewill and ominiscience/omnipotence aspect of God to be proven in a lab?

I'm not talking about proof of them, but of the contradictions they entail. Our freewill against Gods infinite knowledge and power.

I was careful to confine my statement to Christendom only and didn't mention any other faiths. I am interested in you showing me in the Bible where the Christian God teaches the subjugation of non-believers because they don't believe in Him and as a result, Christians are taught to do the same today? Your subtle disapproval/contempt statement is relative; it is common everywhere, whether in religion or amongst atheist. I am sure you would disapprove if your son was an acute alcoholic and a murderer.

Christianity is not the only religion there is. Anyway, the bible requires you to kill unbelievers. See Exodus 22:20.

The disapproval I mean is one which is grounded on religious injunctions. That is, you are disapproved of solely because you either do or avoid doing something that another's religion enjoins you to avoid or to do.

I am not saying it's unreasonable - my stance is simple: Alot of people claim they are God, we have a place for them - the mental hospital.

Lol.

The claim of God has to pass several tests. If you were raising the dead, healing the sick, curing world hunger, and performing outstanding meta-physical events - I probably will take you pretty serious

This is what I mean when I say that you expect God to act according to your expectations. Isn't it possible that God would rather do something else?

Again, I can't speak of most people nor their faith; I can give you my concept of God as I understand it. The issue with homosexuals is that they want to flaunt it and everyone should accept it. For me, it has no little religious bearing - I can't see how two men can give birth to a child. Also, the claim that homosexuals are born like that hasn't been proven scientifically. So, if you prefer a mans Bottom to that of a woman; that is your cup of tea. I think they have the right to live and love.

It was just an example, let's not go into the pros and cons of it here. The point I was trying to pass across is that most people discriminate against gays based on biblical injunctions. Without religion, there really is no good reason to hate them. We do not dislike other people that do not reproduce, why gays?

alexis: There are several reasons; the discussion will be if you consider them tenable or not . I am willing to employ simple logic and reasoning to engage you.

Thanks man.

Okay, let me first ask you a question - What is consciousness?

Are you serious? Okay o. Here's a borrowed definition that I don't fault: consciousness is the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Duuudes, only that first girl is worth a second look.

Bro, you need to give this whole thing a closer look.

calaharry: ...God created Heaven and earth before creating man, and was satisfied that they were good and dt He created only good.So, it confirms that God is good. Otherwise ,God would have said it at the time of creating Heaven and earth b4 man's arrival, that they are a mixture of good and evil.
Now evil is d act of deviation from good or deviating from order or a nom apart its physical action,it has dip spiritual connotation and consequences.

God made man good, right? If he hadn't he would have said that man is a mix of good and evil. Cool.

Since he didn't say that man is both good and evil, and only said instead that man is good, how is it that man is now both good and evil? God could not have lied, I hope.

However, evil came after creation of man, it evolved from conspiracy of man and fallen angels, against the authority of the Almighty, with clear evidence of a negative act which is disobedience(interpreted as rebellion,going against lay down laws,biting the finger that fed you syndrome, usurpation, which grew more evil on earth etc.)

The fall of Lucifer came before the creation of man. You cannot be saying that it is the fall of man that brought evil unless you think the fall of Lucifer was good; that Satan did good by rebelling.

This scenario is typical of wht u seen on earth today, people striving to dominate others for selfish wealth and controlling powers,deviously overthrow or dethrone, take lifes to instill fear, rule with iron fist and intimidation etc., are all evident that evil is of man and not of God.

Asking somebody to do as you say on pain of infinite torture amounts to instilling fear, intimidation and ruling with an iron fist.

Otherwise God would not have made man exist. And He would not have given many chances to turn a new leaf,because He can do and undo.

By knowing that man would turn out to be evil, and then going ahead to create him, God deliberately introduced evil. In fact, he had already prepared hell before he created man. Does this not show knowledge and intention?

JEITO: things a philosopher would say. If I may ask, what is religion built on if not God?

Religion being built on the belief in God does not make it the same as God. You already agree that one is a construction on the other and yet you say the two are the same. That is like saying that the earth and a building are the same object.

What is religion without a divine being?

There are people who don't believe in God but who are religious at the same time. Don't ask me how they manage it.

Wow! You are so impossible!
Goshhh!!! I don't know what to say to you reading through what you just wrote. Not because I lack what to say, but because you are too full of logic.

What does this even mean? Too much logic?

I am sure you read too much of Hume and nietzsche.

No, you are not sure. But even if I had read just the right amount, would it have made a difference?

Saying miracles or supernatural occurences happen mainly where there's poverty or lack of education is so wrong and a disrespect on the intelligence of believers. What would one gain by faking a miraculous happening in his life? Wouldn't it be lying to oneself?

I don't mean any disrespect. However it is something you can confirm for yourself. It is not every where in the world that people go about seeking miracles.

Maybe the less privileged get to have more miracles?

I also disagree with you saying every miracle is something that can man can manage. Saying that is contrary to science because medically, there are cases that are referred to as impossible. But I invite you to the gathering of believers any day you are chanced if you want to see proofs that you yourself won't be able to deny except ofcos if you are just trying to be adamant and not accept it
.

Lol. I have been to even native doctors. It should be easier to find proof of the supernatural with these, since evil spirits would gladly expose themselves to you, whether you have faith or not. I have not seen any, but my search is not over anyway.

But let me ask, what is the source of life? I mean is it possible to bring out something out of nothing?

I honestly don't know. But if there is a God, and this God is alive, would you reject his telling you that his life is uncaused or that it is evolved or that it came from nothing?

There are theories on how life came about, though nothing is conclusive yet. The theory of evolution makes it possible for the first life forms to have been very very simple compared to us. This in turn makes it easier to believe that they self assembled by chance, as opposed to wildly complex things like us coming about by chance. It is quite conceivable that such life came about by good fortune.

alexis: You have contradicted yourself - you are saying God can't be proven yet He can be proven. The issue here is your criteria of proving God.

I said that God is neither proven nor disproved. Where did you see "can't"?

Actually it is not. There are several things we all humans believe in that can't be proven nor do we have an idea what they are.

I don't get. What is not what?

Another misunderstanding of the idea of God at least as He is portrayed in Christendom. God is a God of ordinance and principles; He is not arbitrary. For example, the sun will shine even if it will cause drought and all your crops will die. Will some view that as evil; most likely; does that make God any less God than He is - No!

How do you know the bolded?

There are several attributes of God, depending on the circumstances and the person; we can view God as good, completely good or bad. As a judge that passes judgement on a wrong-doer; God might be classified as bad. To the person receiving the good end of the judgement; God is considered good.

Does it matter to God what he is or does it not? And do you agree that God might be evil?

Really? Can you be more specific on such issues?

Any issue that involves looking deep into the nature of God. Eg the issue of freewill v omniscience/omnipotence. They have an answer to any such issue, which is usually nothing more than "just take it on faith".

This is another assumption. Again, I will use the Christian God as an example. The Christian God does make it clear what He expects of His adherents so there are no arbitrary claims. These laws and expectations were directed at specific people i.e. the 10 commandments of the law of God was directed at the Jewish people - Christians do not force anyone to believe in these laws.

They have done so in the past. They still do so in some parts of the world. Muslims too. Besides there are means of coercion other than outright violence, eg open or subtle disapproval/contempt.

If the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" can raise the dead, heal the sick and atheists can play with the evidence under their micro-scope; I am sure it will not be a hard task to take this "god" seriously

You think the Invisible Pink Unicorn is unreasonable, don't you?

It's a choice mate; you are not being compelled to believe if you don't want to. However, do not fault others that want to believe.

For most people, the most potent reason why they dislike, say, homosexuality is religious in nature. Would you then say homosexuals are not being compelled to conform to the religious notions of others when being gay is frowned upon and even criminalized?

I already said that belief in God of itself is not the problem.

calaharry:
God is good because after creating human, He allowed man freewill to choose good or evil instead of forcing man to do His will.

But did he create the good and evil that man is to choose from or what?

Guys, chill. There is freedom of religion, you know.

The other day it was intimate jihad. Now this. I wonder what's next.

JEITO:
No its not. It is based on the absence of evidence for God. let's not hold too tightly to our individual beliefs for once and let's view things from your own angle.

We were all brought up in a religious society that believe in the existence of a Divine being or divine beings, we were taught that right from time. Our fore-fathers believed it also ie it didn't start from this generation.

Now, we can't just all together dismiss this age long belief all in one day abi? So now, viewing things from your point of view, what evidence do you have to disprove the existence of a divine being other than the theory that," man thought the earth was flat, until it was later discovered to be spherical" and so man could have made the same mistake about the existence of a Divine being.

NB: let your answer not be on assumptions drawn from other similar assertions now disproved, but from tenable proofs. Thank you.

Lol. How do I provide evidence that something does not exist? If a thing does not exist, there would be no evidence for it. I already said that. I never purported to have disproved a creator, anyway.

Why should we abandon age long beliefs? Our forefathers lived in different times. If you want to consider why you should have different views from them, you have to compare the era they lived in to yours. Nobody seriously disputes that we know far more about the world than they did. We have been to the moon and back. We have taken pictures of the earth from beyond Pluto (largest group selfie?). We now have the internet, cars, etc.

Our ancestors lived in a time when they considered almost everything ( eg rainfall, advanced healthcare) to be outside their control. The only way to control these things was to assume that they were in the control of divine beings whom the mortals could in turn exercise some control over, by worship. We now know what to do about rainfall in some cases (cloud seeding) and we can transplant hearts. As a result most of us (including you hopefully) have done away with those age long beliefs in the areas where we have more knowledge. You won't go to a shrine to treat Ebola, even though your forefathers would most certainly have. They would have considered it to be a sign of God's wrath.

New information should change beliefs.

You can also look at it this way. If we did something one way because we thought it was the divine way, and then we discovered another better way of doing that same thing, because of which we abandoned the divine way of doing it, what would be the use of holding on to the belief in the divine way of doing that thing?

However, letting go of such a belief will result in a diminishing of your belief in the divine as a whole. If the divine requires you to have complete belief in him, then he would be displeased at your diminished belief, and he would let you know somehow. If he has not complained, it means not all your beliefs about him are necessary and in the interest of not holding on to unnecessary beliefs, you have to keep removing belief after belief about him, until he complains.

So the moment you stop doing anything the way it was divinely instructed, and with good results, you have reason to doubt any other divine instruction.

Sorry about the delay.

JEITO: well, religion is born out of a belief in God so you can't dismiss the object and accept the subject.

Religion clearly exists. God's existence is not equally obvious. That's why I said that God, not religion, is nothing more than a theory.

Proof!! What type of proof will be tenable for you?
If I share my personal miraculous experience(s) you'll dismiss it as fabricated. If I share those of others that I heard or read, you'll say it doesn't hold water. If I talk about Divine encounters(small and big) you'll still call it myth. So what manner of proof to you want because I believe that among other things,testimonies borne out of personal experience(s) should be valid enough.

Miracles are unreliable. They have never been replicated. They never occur where they can be recorded properly. There tends to be more reports of them where there is more hardship and lack of education. A lot miracle claims have been shown to be either false or to simply involve the happening of a statistically unlikely event. Miracles claim to involve breaking natural laws but there are no miracles that are outside the ability of man to manage, such as the growing back of limbs or resurrection of persons with extensive damage to their body. There are just so many grounds to question the truth of a miracle claim.

A personal encounter with the divine, as you may have heard before, is in the realm of psychosis and hallucinations. What are we to do with a report of an experience that only your brain perceives, sometimes even with others present around you, when almost everybody is known to have similar experiences? If I told you I fell into a trance in which I saw the ultimate proof that there is no God, would you without any skepticism accept at once that there is no God? You would prefer to put my so called proof to the test.

Attributing things to God because you don't understand them is one way of jumping to conclusions.

felicia01:
Do you think overtime some people will have a change of heart or do you think people will start to think differently about their beliefs?

Yes, I think people will start to think differently about their beliefs. Its just a matter of time, really.

JEITO: hmmm I see you view religion as science! Things a philosopher would do.

I don't see religion as science. I'm not a philosopher. I said that God, not religion, is at best a theory, and an unreliable one at that.

I like your point, but lemme ask:

Whose responsibility is it to prove to you as an individual, that God exist since you claim his existence is unproven?

Anybody that believes that God exists should have tenable reasons for holding such a belief. If he wants me to share his belief, he has to share such tenable reasons with me.

What do you need as proof of his existence? A picture

Any means of proof that is accepted as sufficient for other matters. It could be direct evidence or even by an argument.

Is your argument based on the fact that religion present God as "perfect" yet when you look

No its not. It is based on the absence of evidence for God.

SmellMyFart:
Gayism And Lesbianism Is Not And Will/Can Never Be Accepted In Nigeria. I Rest My Arguments

You are wrong. Give it time.

SmellMyFart:
You must've heard about the like poles of a magnet repelling each other and unlike poles clinging to each other. Same goes in the electrical field with respect to charge.

In nature/biology, man is a living organism and so are animals. If this practise is right, why haven't any animal be it domestic or wild indulge in such act? I'm not trying to juxtapose man with mere animal cos it's certain we're the greatest of all organisms but in situations like this, the most silly evidence can be useful.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Dude, animals engage in homosexual behaviour.

What's your other objection to homosexuality?

We believe that they should be given the same rights accorded to the heterosexual.

Hello.

I'm agnostic-atheist (fence sitter).

JEITO: I have noticed the animosity with which atheists generally, react to anything that has to do with religion. Often making a meal out of it..

Well, I won't dwell on that; I just wan to ask this question to all atheist:

Does the fact that you don't believe in God for whatever reason, rule out the POSSIBILITY of his existence and Power or influence?

I'd say no.

If "yes", who made you the judge over what is right or wrong and am I as a religious person not entitled to my own opinion/freedom of worship?
If "no", why then do you refer to/ see religious people as gullible and also fight against the public expression of religion or religious tenets?

God is unproven. He is also not disproved. However, the current absence of evidence for his existence is exactly what would be obtainable if he did not exist. You are therefore entitled to act as if he did not exist.

Religion involves acting as if an unproven God does exist. Being unproven, God is no more than a hypothesis, at best he can be a theory. A theory is something we can jettison if we find another better theory to replace it or if we find that the evidence does not support it.

In most religions (including christianity and islam), it is never found that the evidence does not support God, instead God is redefined to accommodate the evidence. For example, God is said to be all powerful and all good but when presented with the problem of evil, especially gratuitous evil, God is implied to lack some degree of control over evil while at the same time no concession is made as to his omnipotence, or he is implied to be imcompletely good and at the same time completely good.

This is where the gullibility comes in, as one who has been shown that A is not B insists that A must be B. Usually, the motive for insisting that A is B, or for example that God is completely good, is a selfish one. The person wishes God to be good because a good God favours him. To God himself, if any, what is it to him that he is not good? It does not add to or take away anything from him. In a world of joy and suffering therefore, what is the basis of insisting that God is completely good?

Religious people tend to refuse to think such issues through, instead preferring to assume that God is one who likes anything they like. The unquestioning assumption about the nature of God makes them prone to being manipulated or to believe other incredible things.

Believing that God exists is one thing and of itself it is not a problem. It becomes a problem when one believes that the God needs him to act in a certain way and that every other person should act in that same way. There is no telling what the God might require of his believers, and knowing that the followers are very likely to obey whatever instructions they receive from him without question since they believe it to be the truth, it is dangerous to allow people to insist on global acceptance of the instructions of any God.

Maybe you think your God is reasonable, but what about every other persons God? This unreliability in religion is what is sought to be shown by religions such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Good luck disproving their God.

This is why religion, or at least the insistence on everybody obeying the instructions of any God, should not be accepted.

ice234:
The logic is very flawed here...
Create means to bring to life that which was not in existence. Man made phone but never created phone.

God created man to be perfect like him, but then gave us a mind of our own. He gave us the ability to choose between the good and the bad, but man chose bad and so became inperfect.

If man can choose between good and bad, and he is made in God's image, then God can choose between good and bad.

If the choice between good and bad is not a permanent choice, but one that can be reversed at any time, then God can choose to do bad at any time.

If doing bad at any time makes you imperfect, then God will become imperfect as soon as he does bad.

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

God is not perfect, just like man. And since he also has free will, nothing stops him from doing something wrong again.

And you expect others to eat the food that you gift them?

Christians in these parts tend to take the bible and God's existence on faith alone. They can't do much with your advice.

plaetton:
Mistransliteration perhaps, or even dislexia.
Where, in this case, " selfless service" is mistaken for " self- service" .
Abi?

Lol! Now I can't read "selfless service" and not think of people having at it.

This skirmish is just hilarious

Stop advocating sexual repression jor. Natural sex my foot. Why don't you stop using condoms as well and pray to God to make your wife conceive everytime you do her, so that your seed won't be wasted?




Just wondering, what do you call someone who can't help watching people while they do it?

DoctorAshley: i believe man is a soul,the soul is d body.
and i was created by God .thats y my life has meaning

You know if you say your soul is your body, it means there is no after life for you. Any damage to your body would also be damage to your soul.

Without any hope of the afterlife, of what use is it to believe in God? You would be better off without such a belief. At the very least there will be more certainty in your life.

Also, without any hope of the afterlife, your life's God given meaning becomes impaired since you are supposed to spend the greater part of your life in either heaven or the other place.

Your life's God given meaning is to come to heaven and praise him for eternity, fyi. That's why you only spend a smidgeon of your life here on earth and nobody in heaven takes into account what you did here on earth, except for your sin status at the time of your death.

You could make all of the money, or be the most skilled surgeon, or the most vocal human rights activist, or run the biggest NGO, or do a host of other things that are useful to society, but all of these do not interest God. If they do not interest God, who made them meaningful? You or God?

Ideally, the line should be drawn at a place that demands nothing but contempt for every other religion. Showing respect to another religion is a tacit admission that it has some value, and what makes a religion valuable if not authenticity?

In the presence of just one true God, what would be the basis of respecting any religion that does not worship that true God? Any show of respect to other religions means ones own religion is not entirely correct, as you would be admitting that there is some positive value in worshipping false Gods. If ones religion is correct, other religions should not be tolerated, at least in the interest of the salvation of all of mankind.

So, ideally the disdain which you have for Satanism should be extended to Islam, ATR, Judaism, etc. A false God is a false God, whether he is Lucifer or not. However, thanks to cognitive dissonance, you are able to eat your cake and think you still have it.