₦airaland Forum

Gombs: Yeah, I have an idea
Quit using logic on God, it never works out well..even for urself

If you don't know the answer, just say so. Or try to make an informed guess.

Logic is used on God all the time. How do you convince yourself that there is God? You probably tell yourself that life is too complex to not be designed or that we must have been caused by a superior being. These involve application of logic. Without such rationalizations, you would have no reason to prefer God to a spanner. So it is not correct to say that using logic on God never works out well.

Besides, how do you explain your preference for a particular religion over another? All religions give their Gods various, usually differing properties. Without using logic to discriminate between what properties God should or should not have, you would be left with no option but to believe in every God. Or arbitrarily choose one.

All I'm trying to do is determine the properties of God.

I've been wondering what is meant by a good God.




God is good.

Okay.

The problem here is that "good" is meaningless without "evil". In order for good to exist, evil must exist, since a thing can only be good in relation to another thing.

Christians will say that God is good and man introduced evil after the fall. Or perhaps it was the fall of Lucifer that introduced evil. Either way, what it means is that God became good at the point of the introduction of evil. Before then, he was good in relation to what? Nothing. So he could not have been good.

In order for God to be good from the on set, there must have been evil somewhere, from the on set. There are four ways this could have played out:

1. God is neither good nor evil, he just is. In this case, good and evil only have meaning because we say they do. What we mean when we say something is good or evil is that we approve or do not approve of it. Nothing is objectively good or evil.

2. Assuming that one thing can be both at the same time, God is both good and evil. Good and evil exist objectively, and they are both embodied in God.

3. Assuming that nothing can be both at the same time, God is good, while another entity exists which is evil. This entity would be similar to God, (eg if God has a good personality, it would have an evil personality) in order to be the antithesis of God. Thus it should be sentient. Here, God is not responsible for the evil being. Instead something higher than both God and the evil being is responsible for both of them.

4. Still assuming that nothing can be both at the same time, God is evil, while another entity exists which is good. And something else is responsible for both of them.

Which one is obtainable? I have no idea. I could even be entirely wrong.

Any ideas?

Mr Aborisha, good morning Sir.

We are not quite getting you here. Is you problem with anti-theists who think they are atheists, or with atheism as a whole as it pertains to pantheism?

And when you say everything is God, do you mean everything is a deity or that everything is merely sacred?

As far as an atheist holds a materialist worldview, anything that is said to be a deity, or divine, or supernatural, or transcendent, or immanent, etc, is denied by the atheist. Most atheists have a materialist worldview.

If what you are trying to do is show us that atheism is an irrational position to hold, you can simply present your ordered arguments, instead of creating and sustaining this wonderful round about discussion.

Thank you Sir.

I can't see that there is anything that is inherently good or bad.

When it comes to morally right or wrong, however, (as far as morality refers to how humans ought to behave towards one another) I believe that using the guideline "to others as to you" will be a step in the direction of making morally right decisions. The only addition would be that actions that do not interfere with the well being of any other human being should be equally permissible.

Bro, what is stated here is that participants in a discussion about the existence of God need to make certain that they all mean the same thing when they say "God", so they don't talk past one another. That's all. Nobody said the atheist must always define what God is.

folykaze: Also, considering what we have here which is an atheist forumhttp://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/ , it is stated there that atheist who claim disbelieve in God must be able to define what God is. . . . .

Why then is my own question a crime?

mazaje: Nice input brother. . .He is just trolling, i just regretted engaging him and derailing the thread. . .He forcefully wants to say that christianity is a monotheistic religion defines god the same way as the polytheist or pantheist defines god. . .he claims that according to christinaity humans are god, many god exist, energy is god bla bla bla. . .this man is deluded and a ridiculous troll. . .

Uh huh. Bible God cannot be energy. Maybe he specializes in the use of soundwaves, and he cannot be created or destroyed. But like you pointed out, he is said to be unchangeable. He also gets jealous, angry, happy, etc. He is a personal God. I doubt energy has personality. There is a reason why christianity does not fall under pantheism. Or polytheism. Even if we are gods, we were still all created by a particular god, so what does our 'godhood' matter?

The man just de catch trips. First he said his problem is with irreligionists disguising as atheists. That such a person can be known by his inability to define God. After getting an all encompassing definition of God, he is now debati.....I'm not sure what he is debating.

@folykaze

But you stubborn sha. Do you agree that there is no single definition for God? I agree. You do too, you said so in your third sentence. As such, asking an atheist to define God amounts to asking him to give you all the definitions of God. This is because unlike theists, an atheist does not have a preference for any definition of God. If the atheist limits himself to any particular God, he is no atheist in the true sense. He will only be an atheist the same way a christian is an atheist to Allah.

This is not even taking into account the fact that atheism is the absence of belief. It is you who wants somebody to believe something that will define what the thing is. You may say an atheist wants you to believe that there is no God, but an atheist can only provide you with a broad and general concept of what the God is. Mazaje did good by providing you with a summary of what God should mean, i.e supreme being and all that, but you are still asking for definition.

I think you seriously misunderstand what atheism is or you are just trolling.

The fact that there is no universal definition of God is not the atheists problem, but the theists. It is them after all who brought it up.

And those your examples that state; I believe Fela is God, if you say God does not exist, you are denying the existence of Fela, they are just misguided. Look at it this way; I say to you "Fela is a square circle". You know that square circles don't exist and you tell me so. Would I be correct to conclude that you are thereby denying the existence of Fela? I don't think so. (I noticed you were reluctant to call Fela a supreme being. Hmm.)

Also saying you can label anything as God simply shows that you are trolling. I might as well label this post God. Or bread. That doesn't make the post God. In fact, if I did that, your humble self would say that my post is not God. Then you would have to define God for me.

I still think you may have an unfair dislike of atheists, since you keep excusing agnostics, even though they must also know what God is before saying they have not reason to believe in him.

The definition you seek has been given to you. Maybe its something else you want.

FOLYKAZE: Whats up bro.

I'm good man. You?

The agnostics blend with their knowlege. . . .hat they have on ground. They are neither here or there. So it is very hard to hold them on definition.

Atheists that claim they disbelieve in God are expected to know what God is. The reasons for their disbelieve in not the itch but what they disbelieve in.

You know it will be ver hard for you totell you I disbelieve in a fish swimming in the mud when I dont know what a fish is?

Same thing applies here.

Well, agnosticism is not the position that we do not know what God is, but rather it states that God's existence is unknown. So as far as a definition of God is concerned, it is no less vague than theism or atheism or others.

If you believe that the reasons for atheism are clear, then you must know what the atheist means by God. Otherwise the reasons for atheism could, to you, be practically the same as the reasons for theism, or pacifism, or circumcision or even for wearing native on Friday.

Respect to Pastor AIO. He made a definition on what God is on a particular thread. He said God is everything that has dominion. In the first place, I did not argue about it. I went aheas trying to find meaning and support to what he said. And I found the definition correct with what I fsaw in the bible. Assuming I didnt find anything, I will ask question and expect him to provide answers not name calling.

While the pastor is speaking of one God, atheism speaks of any possible God. It is not practical to define all possible Gods before disbelieving them. It is enough to say that we are here by accident.

I am an atheist. A spiritual atheist to be specific. I believe and disbelieve in God depending on how you define God. Fela is my God. . . .will an atheist tell me fela is non existent?

This is an atheist thread.t they claim to disbelieve in God and are entitled to define or make me understand what God which they disbelieve is. . . . .after that we can talk about reasons.

Do you attribute all of existence, or our existence at least, to an act of Fela? An atheist does not believe that Fela is God. If Fela is not God, and no other thing is God, then God does not exist. Fela is free to exist.

And why does your belief or disbelief depend on "how you define God"? You shouldn't wait for a definition, according to the demand you are making here.

@folykaze

Yeah. You know the agnostics here are agnostic atheists, right? The only difference btw agnostics and atheists is that the former do not know if God exists while the latter know that he does not exist. This issue of definition that you are raising will apply to both of them.

Picking an issue with atheists for not defining God when agnostics did not define God shows that you either do not understand the difference between the two positions, or that you have an unfair dislike of atheists.

This definition point is moot anyway. There is no single definition of God. God is as defined by whoever asserts his existence. There are a 1001 different definitions of him, according to the many opinions on the issue. What is common to all is that the God is a sentient entity, and that he or it created us. Atheist or agnostic, neither agree with that sentience part.

You don't expect anybody to start listing all the definitions of God before disbelieving in him. By your logic,a christian will have to list every possible definition of God before denying them and affirming Yahweh, otherwise he does not know what he is saying. Same for every other believer.

In case you were wondering, your God is among the ones that atheists and agnostics don't believe in.

In other words, why do muslims and christians tend to resort to the qur'an and bible when attempting to show the existence of God?

I think they do that because it is easier to talk about God from pages of the book than from looking at the world around them. The deity is more compatible with the inanimate and static literature.

Anyway, the qur'an or bible give reasons why God should exist, which the faithful agree with. They also agree that God must exist outside any religious book, otherwise he is the tooth fairy. So if God exists outside the holy book, the reasons for his existence must also exist outside the holy book, right? And since holy books appeal to the reason of believers, the holy books endorse reasoning too.

Why then do believers, in showing that God exists, require the suspension of reasoning, in favour of faith? Why do they argue from within the book, rather than from without, which is where the supposed God is?

I would have thought that the holy books would only be used when trying to show a person why one faith is better than another, since almost everybody has their own book. It is the other way round instead.

Also, in cases where they come across atheists and the like, since God exists outside any book, would it not be a start for them to show that God exists first before asking the atheist to put his faith in any particular book?

To me, always falling back on the bible or qur'an means you can't defend God's existence without that book, while the reverse should be the case.

What is God's moral grounding?

paulcr7: 'some truths cannot be substantiated or refuted'- can that statement be substantiated or refuted.if it can be substantiated(as agnostic except),then why cant God's existence be substantiated.Agnostic has no rational basis because no matter how much evidence u present,they can still choose to say it is nt substantiated.so,what test does agnostic apply to know when a claim can be said to be substantiated?

Young man,if the statement was "no truth can be substantiated or refuted", then your argument would have carried some force.

I am agnostic cos I haven't seen any good reason to believe in God. Especially Jehovah and Allah. Those two are just ridiculous.

Most of the questions that lead to the issue of God can be answered without positing God. And even the ones that are answered by invoking God are not correctly answered, since God himself, if he is anything like us, will have to ask the same questions again. For instance, if we can't be moral without God, then what is the source of God's morality?

Also, given the state of the world today, any God that does exist is either not as nice as he is being made out to be or he is just not interested in our affairs. Either way, I haven't seen anything that suggests that he is a personal God, so he is of no consequence.

Lastly, I am agnostic cos I enjoy the company of other infidels.

OP, there isn't a shred of sense in your post. This Ebola outbreak is not the first disease outbreak on earth. God has never stopped any of them before, and he is not going to start now. The number of lives each outbreak claims corresponds to the level of medical advancement at the time of the outbreak. The more advanced it is, the fewer the lives lost. Check your history books, the number of fatalities from pandemics in past eras before medicine became advanced is generally in the hundreds of thousands. Now we can avoid such mass fatalities, because we have better healthcare.

Faith, on the other hand, has always been there but we find that people will always keep dying of a disease until a medical cure is found. And the dead never predominantly belong to one faith or the other, as would be the case if Jehovah or Allah were doing the curing. And have you noticed that the curing regime of God is always highly unpredictable and records poorer success than medicine? It's always one or two fellows that come forward to give testimony. Never a thousand, or all the people in a hospital ward. What this means is that medicine is kinder and more reliable than God.

Anyway, is it not this same God that created the Ebola virus, and programmed it to live off human beings? God designed it to break open your blood vessels and bleed you out with your skin intact. What makes you think he is your friend?

What you need is psychiatric evaluation, man.

OP. If you refuse to take steps to avoid getting infected by Ebola, then you will get infected and you will likely die. God did not intervene in the case of the over 800 people that have been killed by the disease. Why should he intervene in your case?

Listen to what Johnson Sirleaf had to say about the outbreak in her country;

"In a speech, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberia's president, said that "ignorance and poverty, as well as entrenched religious and cultural practices, continue to exacerbate the spread of the disease."

Better give yourself brain. Na people with your mindset go spoil show for Liberia. Follow the advice of healthcare professionals.

Ebola did not kill God anything jor. The bubonic plague got him.

Serves him right for allowing Noah to bring the bacteria and viruses into the Ark.

This thing is ridiculously simple, and yet it's been said over a million times, to little avail. The religious mind is amazing!

mazaje: The ONLY reason you are here telling me about the truth of your religion is because you were born into it. . .If you were born into a muslim or hindus home it will be a different trut you will be preaching. . .That is the fact. . .



You are saying this because you have been indoctrinated with the christian theology and as such it becomes the basis in which you view the world around you. . .If you were born into a Jewish family you would not be saying these things. . .You will actually laugh and mock people that say these things. . . .You are wired to believe that those that refuse to accept your religion are rebelling, but you forget that you also have refused to accept the religions of others.. Do you lose any sleep if a muslim tells you that you will spend eternity in hell for not accepting the islamic story and theology?. . .The answer is no, that is exactly the way me and others that do not accept your own man made religion and theology feel when you keep spewing your religious jargon at us. . .It only makes sense to you because you were born in the bubble and indoctrinated with it to see the world within it. . .Your life revolves around it because you were wired to and made to accept and see things that way. . .Others are also wired and made to accept other stories and other theology. . .There is no truth in your religion, just as there is no truth in the religion of others that you discard. . .They are all equally valid or invalid. . .They are all man made constructs to help them better appreciate life and this mysterious world we find ourselves in. . .

.

Let me just assume that heaven and hell are real, to answer your question. I also assume you are a christian. I will choose heaven. I know hell is the place to be, cos all the interesting people are there, but I'm a queasy person, I don't like gore. I'm also easily frightened.

I know there could eventually be a rebellion, and hell might turn around for the better (you don't believe me? Humans are a powerful bunch, and we have been perverting God's will since time immemorial. With enough of us in hell, we can pervert his will again) but the wickedness of God knows no temporal limit and I would rather not get on his nerves.

So heaven it is, because I have the fear of the great meanie.

The only problem here is when somebody asks why it is the bible we should just accept by faith, instead of any other book, holy or otherwise.

If you try to answer the question by referring to the bible (which you must do, since christianity is based on only the bible), you will begin to show me verses which say that God is God, or which contain profound knowledge of the world or etc, which amounts to reasoning with me.

If however, you answer by saying that we should also take it on faith, then you have not told us why we shouldn't take our phone manuals on faith instead.

What I'm saying is, there is a point at which you provide an explanation.

texbaba1: you are rigth in ur analysis bro, infact if u start listing all d errors in d bible, u will run out of sheets of paper. However, ar mistaken in d way u look at the bible, u forgt that the bible was written by humans nd ther is nothing infallibility about man. Moreso, dont look at the bible from d point of view of a philosopher looking for truth, or a mathematician trying to solve an equation...it will never add up, or a scientist looking for proof...u sill never find it. The bible is purely a faithbased book nd only to be seen from d point of view of faith...just accept it with faith, not with rationality or empirically. That is why jesus christ used the little children in describing the word of God, bacause little children dont doubt or ask questions, they just love nd believe u in what ever u tell them. So as a christian, just accept the word of God with faith. You ar either a christian or u ar nt.

That effect is one of strict adherence. It is not unique to Islam. Christianity has its moments too.

You have to give any prospective convert a bible to read. If you are not there to guide him, the bible alone can hardly do the job.

bot101: i'd advice you to see the effect of the quran in the lives of many muslims when it comes to strict inerrancy. also, you are the one to bring others to salvation using the word as guided by the spirit of God and the bible helps you to know this spirit.

The writer already said that Nigerian culture seems embedded in our everyday lives and vocab. No wahala sha. The writer did not acknowledge the role of Christianity an Islam in influencing cultures. To the extent that these two religions are a way of life, they are likely to override any cultural practice that runs contrary to them. That one is no ones fault. Nobody jokes with their salvation.

I think the writer was dismissive of anybody that speaks english with and English or American accent. While some people affect an accent out of pretentiousness, she has to keep in mind that anybody trying to learn a language well learns the accent too. Would you like to hear Yoruba spoken with a Tiv accent?

Also, displays of culture are not the norm in cosmopolitan settings in Nigeria, due to our ethnic diversity. The attempt to find a common denominator, as opposed to everybody being cultural in the midst of every other person, is one of the factors promoting the adoption of western culture. Just like we use English as our lingua franca.

And the writer could have been less critical of cosmetic enhancements. I don't see it as a western idea, but as a human idea. It is good to try to look your best. Also, plastic surgery is mostly frowned upon in these parts. (Not by me)

The write up highlights a big problem we are facing, but there could have been better suggestions for a solution. The suggestion here seems to be: STOP IT! Yeah, but what do we replace it with? There must have been something that made it appealing in the first place. I don't know what it is but we should address it.

Nice article.

frosbel: The Bible is not unreliable when you read it from the context of the overall message of God's love and salvation for MANKIND.
Note a few things :
1. God used imperfect human beings
2. He did not override their will, emotion or intellect
3. He inspired them and they put pen to paper as best as they could narrate the words of God.
4. There were obviously errors and misrepresentations in some cases but these are few and far between.
5. The original manuscripts are not available, what we do have now are copies from other copies.
6. If you think about it, in those days there was no press, so scribes at different locations and times had to painstakingly copy these manuscripts.
7. During the translation to Latin , the Catholic church deliberately inserted some outright errors to support their myths such as the Trinity , Hell etc
8. These errors were carried into the English versions.
9. Nevertheless we are able to understand the specific truths of God through his Spirit and this requires humility
10. The message of Salvation is still not lost and consistent as ever.
Don't use this opportubtiy to make rash statements on what you know not.

I get what you mean. Anybody that reads the bible understands at once that he is being presented with a choice between heaven and hell. That much is clear. That's the salvific message right? We all get that. Salvation is the theme of the bible, and I haven't seen a book that was unreliable as to its theme. Books tend to get their themes spot on.

What I asked you is why the bible is not adept at converting everybody to christianity, considering that it was commissioned by the almighty. Why is the message of salvation unpersuasive? I think the message falls flat because it is contained in a book that is full of errors.

I guess you have chosen to explain away all the errors in the bible through the 10 reasons you listed. Not all of us can be that lenient. For example, how can you say God did not influence the will, emotion or intellect of a person you do not know? Was he just walking around willing write the word of God? Did he discover God before the word of God? If so, is the bible mecessary? Me, I must ask such questions. As far as I know, the bible is full of such errors because it is not the word of any almighty God.

Anyway, tell me why such an ineffective means of persuasion like the bible was chosen for the salvation of the whole world.

OP. All this inerrancy talk, I tot you were going to tell us that the bible is unreliable. Instead you say God wanted it that way. But don't you think that if God was keen on getting us into heaven, he would have made more effort to ensure the inerrancy of the bible? Cos as it is now, christians are turning away from christianity cos of that book and its errors, and the same book is supposed to win over the whole world. It is supposed to win over non religious people and people who already show a preference for other religions. Well, somebody is a prankster, otherwise, shoddy job .

Suolboy, good job.

This argument, you say it is logical. But you did not say whether it is merely valid, or both valid and sound. To me it is not sound.

Why?

Well the premises make certain unstated assumptions. As is the case with assumptions, they can be replaced with other assumptions. Here are the assumptions:

You do not get something from nothing. This assumption is based on our limited understanding of the world. It is an a posteriori argument, derived from our experience of the world. It does not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. It also assumes that the First Cause is unique and does not require any causes, which amounts to a special pleading.

Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. The argument makes reference to only the big bang theory, which theory is not the only theory for the universe. There are theories that propose that the universe is eternal. The big bang theory itself divides scientists on the question of whether or not it is meaningful to pose the question; what was there before the big bang?

Once you change the assumptions, the conclusion you want us to accept changes and your logical argument becomes unsound because it cannot be said to be true.

Moving on to what you claim to be evidence for the christian God. All the characteristics you listed are contingent, they could or could not have come into being. Take for instance personality. Unless you want to argue that personality is a necessary property of God, it follows that if God has a personality, he might also not have had one. This raises the issue of what determines the characteristics of God. The obvious answer would then be chance. The problem for you here is that your christian God then becomes a product of chance. You can replace personality with purpose, intelligence, morality, etc. The result is the same. Why should chance favour him, but not Buddha or the deist God?

The rest of your argument follows the trend of assuming properties for God. You say God must have a purpose because we have one. What is our purpose? Or the issue of consequence. What is the consequence of disbelief (keep in mind that christianity is one of many competing religions). You even say that we must prove that God exists because the consequences of asserting that God does not exist are dire. But what are the consequences And how does that shift the burden of proof from one who asserts the existence of a thing? There is a strand of dishonesty in being this presumptous.

There is also dishonesty in stating that God is bible God but failing to show where the bible provides the corresponding logical arguments. Don't raise the issue of faith here, since you have now chosen to rely on logic. If you propose to demonstrate that God exists through logic, then surely using the same logic to show that the bible is his message to us should be a simpler task.

Abeg jor. No trend like that. http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/6-b.s.-stories-that-fooled-everyone-facebook-this-week/

Na models be all those people...the average white nyash is not that fine.

Please don't mind all these people that are here shouting 'dominate', 'dominate'. They do not speak for all the Igbo people. I wonder why somebody will see trouble and be rushing into it. That one na foolhardiness.

torchwave: Of course I'm not disputing the fact that God hardened his heart. It is written in black and white that He created Pharaoh for the purpose of displaying His greatness and power to the world.

My point, note, is that Pharaoh never had any intention in the first place to set the Israelites free, which served the purpose of God and thus God hardened his heart to make sure he refused letting them go. This is to prove that nothing can thwart his purpose and plan even in the face of any obstacle in the person of a king. Yes he hardened Pharaoh's heart but even then Pharaoh could still choose to set the Israelites free. Why? His freewill which was intact manifested in his letting the Israelites leave Egypt. Geddit?

In other words, God hardened Pharaoh's heart but still gave Him the power to exercise his freewill without obstruction. That is why he later told Moses to leave with the Israelites. That's my point.

God was...not sure? He took steps to ensure? Doesn't he already know everything beforehand? He must have known that he was not sure, then. But at the same time he knew what he was going to do. Alternatively, he is just making it up as he goes along.

Na the thing wey we dey talk be that. Instead of supplying excuses for God, and justifying all his actions no matter how inconsistent they seem, you should turn, look him in the eye, and ask; what's all this, then?

There is a lot of competition for the post of 'God'. From Islam to Judaism to Christianity to Buddhism to many others. It is people who are as intelligent and as spiritual as you that follow these other religions. If the candidate you are proposing is receiving too many queries, and you are struggling to exonerate him, you should start to consider alternatives. And where all the candidates are receiving too many queries, adjust the criteria or redefne the post. No be by force o. A square peg will never fit in a round hole.

mazaje: Brother, you don come here dey cause confusion abi?. . .I'll expose you ohh. . .

Lol

Unbeliever that you are, hearing the word of God is always confusion to you.

God loves you bro

chrisviral: Depends on your definition of authentic..
Any miracle that is explain-able is not a miracle, a Miracle is something humanly impossible, makes no sense to science but it did happen!

And the fact your bias means that you will not find any story here authentic, so what are you looking for?
Know what you want!

Brotherly, I agree with you but let me just add that even if it is explainable, it is still a miracle. This is usually the case with miracles that involve overcoming fiendish odds. Our God is not only a God of impossibility but of statistical improbability. Like in my case when I escaped death in the care crash you can explain it away by luck or safety design but that does not mean that God was not involved.

I even suspect that what we see as impossible is merely improbable. Nothing is impossible for God anyway. We call it impossible because the odda are extremely high against. Eg. Like the example of the girl who was cured of fibroid which she then excreted, if when you try to account for it you include the probability that the laws of physics (possibly chemistry and biology) as we know them were momentarily suspended or modified, then it is easier to explain the occurence. Not that we need an explanation tho. So in such an instance, while it is highly improbable that the laws of physics were tinkered with, it is not entirely impossible. All the infidels can then shut up about impossibility, since it is improbability we are dealing with, and they don't have much problem with that. They are people of chance afterall, right?

MizMyColi: *raises her hand* I do, a very personal one care to read?

My sister pls share your miracle story with us and show these infidels the light of God.

Oduduwaboy: Once again there has been a thread like this before

Time traveller