₦airaland Forum

Lagoshia, stop trying to paint Jesus black simply because the 9-year-old-girl-nacking prophet mo' has been exposed 2deda wit his koranic manual of violence and terrorism

I hope say u norr dey mock God?

But i hope say you know say koran na handbook for terrorism. . . . hindu na pagan

mazaje:
Who made Steven Hawkings and authority over the existence of the universe?. . . .Why not the Koran or the Hindu vedas? They are also words of the creator/creators of the universe, no?. . .

Na jus play i dey take am play na. . . , . .na fight?

Bros, dem talk say person wey dey ask kweshun, no dey miss road. e good to dey ask all this kweshuns dem. But my two kobo be say, the one wey beta pass so so kweshun na to enter prayer, make Oga God belle-full you with the ansa dem dem. notin wey praya norr fit do

Abi o. . . . . . de guy no get anything sensible to say jaaare

Kay 17:
@graybeard since u believe the universe had a creator (who is invisible to all). Then like david hume, what is the purpose of the universe? Who created this very complex being God?

That is not the question for the day oga sir., the question is whether this world was created, or popped out of stephen hawkings yansh. . . that is the question. if you want to know about God, why dont you abandon science and try reading ya bible

wetin be dat?

mazaje:
Wise old man. .Na fight?. . . .

No be fight, but the man does not even know the definition of the atheism he is parroting, and yet he can come here to try and abuse others as ignorant. . . .what a pr.ick

Haba Beaf, it is LAME for you to try to expulpate Jonathan from responsibility from a period when he was PRESIDENT simply on the ground that there was a manifesto from his predecessor. For fcuks sake, is he a robot? Could he not have re-engineered the manifesto? Was he not president?

If you were the president at that time, would you have gone about saying you can do nothing since its your predecessor's manifesto in operation? ? ? ?

That is so hare brained, its comical mate!

Thank you for your response. Please don't leave the thread. If i could take my sunday afternoon to open this thread, at least humour me bro.

Alright. Now that we are off the blocks. Please can you point out some of the said things that you think he got wrong?

PS - Edits contained in underlined portions of post above.

Idehn:
Ok now I have to explain to you the past and present. Are you living in the Universe now? Were you living in the Universe a minute ago? Were you living in the Universe 1 year ago? In each of those time periods the Universe was almost completely different from what it is/was. The universe was smaller, had a higher temperature. It changed. However, it did not stop being the Universe just because it got bigger and colder. That is why I took the trouble of distinguishing the different time periods the Universe has gone through. That is why I used words like "current", "past", "state", "form","now". That is why I have been saying from the beginning that under the premises YOU presented, the Universe must have always existed if only in a different form. It is to recognize the fact that the Universe has changed and is still changing. Like I stated earlier do you not understand the difference between the current Universe and a singularity? There is no special name for the current state of the Universe unlike that of the oldest known state "singularity".

Oya, u norr bin want pigdin again, abi - make we begin dey fire oyibo grammar propadendentium -

All protocols duly observed, since we have now transited from the mode of distorted English into pure and advanced cosmological dialectics. The quote sourced from the poster above is sought to be contradicted by this poster by the following questions. Questions which render bare and lay lucid the several contradictions of the poster above in his irascible bid to entrench a most dogmatic and utterly unfounded atheistic world-view.

The Poster above is required to answer the following questions, as we set forth this debate in a lucid light, given that the poster above experienced challenges following the discussion at the time when this poster adopted a more informal tone.

The questions are as follows –

1. Why did you claim that you did not know what existed before the big b.ang only to come around later and describe in detail what existed before the big slam – the Singularity.

2. Why did you claim that the singularity is the universe, and then proceed to insist that they are absolutely different things.

3. I did point out to you that that event (the big b.ang) was a defining event that caused the universe to come into existence. Your position was that the universe did not come into existence, and that the singularity itself was the universe.

4. I pointed out to you that the universe is not changing as such into anything ELSE, but is only growing. You have implicity agreed with this by using the example of a growing child, no? You must accept that you were wrong when you said the universe is changing into SOMETHING ELSE because using your example, a child does not change into another creature – it only grows.

In case the import of the above has missed you – it is simply to demonstrate that the “change” you cite as a reason for the big ban.g is not a given – all that we see in the current universe is expansion. That is insufficient to explain the radical change that the initial expansion represents – because the state prior to that was not a growing universe which we currently have. The state prior to that was absolutely different. In one line – the question remains – what triggered the big ban.g? Your previous explanation simply will not do, because you say that the singularity has always existed. Why didn’t it simply continue “always existing”?

If it had always existed for all past eternity, why did it not change state prior? What occurred at that specific moment to trigger the ban.g which had not occurred for all its existence in the eternal past. As a science-lover you cannot claim that you do not recognize elementary principles of cause and effect. What was the cause.

If you say “I don’t know” again, then please also accept that you have no right to exclude the idea of creationism. Simple.

Somewhere up in your post you again alluded that the consequence of my principle is that the universe has always existed. I am tired of correcting you on that. The consequence of my principle is rather that something else must have existed prior to the universe, because it requires a causative element.

Now smarten up for once, Olodo.

Ewu.

Beaf:
I see you are attempting to avoid your homework. Find out whose manifesto was running in 2010 and then come back

lol! this guy cant be for real!

So even if there was a manifesto then, are you saying that as president, he is a robot programmed to follow that manifesto, and is INCAPABLE of re-engineering it? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Na wah for you o. And you go dey abuse others. Whish kain reasoning be dis one na?

Abeg, i opened a thread for you -
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-735467.0.html

harakiri:
Atheism is the disbelief in religion and it's myths/bedtime stories.

SHARRRRAP DIA! KONKOLO ILLITERATE.

You disembodied remnant of the shite of a quadripletic lizard.

Just look at the nonsense you have posted above. Who on earth defines atheism as "disbelief in religion and its myths". . . .? That is NOT the definition of atheism. I will not bother with such a hare-brained fellow as yourself since you claim to be an atheist without even knowing what atheism is!

No where on earth has atheism EVER been defined the way you defined it! You are a STARK AND RAVAING ILLITERATE LUNATIC.

For your education, here is the definition of atheism -

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

M.O.R.O.N! Get an education before you come to interact with a wise old man like me.

Kay 17:
@enigma how is it possible to discuss a subject without identifying or defining it? U create zero topic for discussion. No one needs to be omniscient to gain an item of knowledge. U failed to provide any characteristic of god u wish to talk about and yet u expect one to be omniscient! Besides what the chances for a subject other than matter, life, that can think, reflect, omnipresent, disconnected from time to exist?

SHARRAP DIA, KONKOLO ILLITERATE! DEFINE DIS, DEFINE THAT: IS THAT ALL YOU EMPTY HEADED TODDLERS CAN SCREAM EVERYDAY? USE A BLOODY DICTIONARY, YOU BOVINE SCALLYWAG.

More feckless bravado. I suppose you need to be good at something. It is certainly not logic/reason/learning/writing.

see dis hare brained douchebag. because person dey use pidgin show am im fooolishness, im tink say na in sabi grammar, abi. ok, now, no wahala. na grammar you want, na ORIGINAL, CAPITAL VICTORIAN GRAMMAR you go get.

LETS GO!

Have no idea.

Na the summary of ya brain be tyhis = admission of ignorance.

So jus\t leave it at that an buzz off with your undiluted dimwitted stooopidity.

What manner of monkey imagines a house withjout a builder.

Tad sad! A little knowledge is very dangerous!

Every moment the Universe changes into something else. The thing that proceeded the current state of the Universe was. . . the Universe.

See contradictory garbage. You just open ya yansh for national assembly, jus begin the sh.it nonsense all over the place. You norr efen get shame at all. Akata bush man. Ewu.

You say every moment the universe changes into something ELSE. If that is true, then your second statement is wrong, when you say that the thing it changes into is still . . .  . the universe!

Bro, ytou  need a shrink! Reading kiddies scoience books that you are not old enuff for is evidently giving you mental problems.

Ode oshi. Olodo rabata roboto

Lol, see illiterate o.

Your words -

If you do not consider that a change of form/state then, something is wrong with you. The big ba.ng was way,way, way more than a simple expansion of the Universe. [size=20pt]Do you not understand the difference between the current Universe and a singularity? [/size] Please go educate yourself on the big ba.ng http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang.

In one breath, you say that you do not know what existed before the big ban.g

I then remind you that it is a singularity.

Then in another breath you say that the singularity is the universe.

Then now, in the bolded above, you are screamning about how the singularity is different from the universe.

Who needs a mental check up now?

Just dress warm and keep deluding your self with your half-baked psuedo intellectual tomfoolery.

I repeat: YOU NORR INTELLIGENT ATALL - ONE KOBO!

Contrast this statement of Abati's -

"I am tempted to provide a list of activities that have so far been engaged in by the Jonathan Presidency, but as this page will not be enough to accommodate such a full list, I shall only provide a few examples and explanations to demonstrate that there has been too much focus in this Presidency on ceremonies rather than service. How? A close review indicates that much of the new man’s time has been taken up by visits to him or by him, locally and abroad, handshakes, speeches, and such other activities which do not translate into any measurable benefit for average Nigerians either in the long or short term."

With this - after he became Spokeman for Jonathan -

". . . .the truth of the matter is that the government has been working very hard and I will give you an example just in the area of foreign relations, which is also an important arm of the government, considering the strategic importance of Nigeria.

“Now in the last one month alone, President Jonathan has played host to the German Chancellor, he has received the British Prime Minister, he attended the independence anniversary of South Sudan, he was in Liberia, a few days ago he also was in Chad and he has also in the last three weeks received representative of Côte d’Ivoire and also from Niger. Now you will see that he has done a lot to hold on to Nigeria’s strategic importance within the region.”

Na wah o!

I think the problem arises when there is a conflictr of interest between mother and wife. One should make the right decision by determining whose "jurisdiction" the matter falls under. For example, you want to move house, or choose a school for your kids, and your mum and wife totally disagree on which house or which school to choose. These two subjects are your wife's jurisdiction because she is the homemaker for your house and the mother of those children. Therefore your wife's preference should prevail.

But let's take another scenario, lets say your mum is lookinmg for a retirement vocation to keep her busy, and your wife disagrees with her choice, maybe on grounds of cost, etc. This pertains to your mum's life and as such her choice should prevail, depending on if you can afford it.

Simple.

But generally these are two DIFFEREN\T relationships that should not be in competition with one another. For fcuks sake, your mum can't hammer you in bed, nor can your wife give birth to you.

chaircover:
. . . . . . . . totally different relationships that cannot be compared.

GBAM! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

carla2009:
This is to all of you in this forum. Obasanjo is the best President Nigeria has ever had. If you know all that is involved in being President in Nigeria, then you would appreciate Baba. Unfortunately, Baba would have to die before many of you would open up your minds to see the guy as a selfless unifying leader. His enemies are very powerful and do not sleep at all. They make up, spread and manipulate information to make him look like a villain using all the mainstream news media to do their dirty job. No wonder National mirror is reaching out to him to tell his own story.

For example, how many of you knew that the power stations that was supposed to give Nigeria 5000MW was 75% complete and all Yar'Adua had to do was to disburse the last tranche of funds? Well it is true. YarAdua and his goons decided to cancel the works and probe the contracts thereby loosing money. It is the same work that was suspended that we are now picking up again and thus paying additional money to revive. I leave you all with your consciences each time you join the let us bash Baba frenzy.

Do you think the people of Odi village will agree with you?

What about 3rd term? Is that something that a good president tries to do?

Beaf, do you think GEJ has done any single thing wrong or made any mistake at all since he became president last year?

I ask this question because someone said on another thread that you are not objective since you cannot ever see anything wrong in anything GEJ does. I agree with that: and i have seen you defending even the most ridiculous of GEJ's foibles, such as his refusal to attend the presidential debate, his exoneration of MEND on Abuja bomb blast, and many many others.

I just want you to indulge us in this thread by telling us the few things that you as an objective person consider that GEJ has got wrong, or in what areas he needs improvement.

This will show that you are objective.

Carry go, i dey wait you.

Una well done. The small one wey i wan take join the mata wey una dey yarn for dis join-bodi associate, na sey, na true say na poor poor people dem, dey dey superstitious wella, well well, but at the same time, dat one no mean say make we no worship our God, the creator of heaven and earth, o.

Na my two kobo be that one, o, una good afternun.

NO, atheist don't believe without evidence atheist are not arguing about weather the universe was created or not because no body knows how the universe came about, what it is, where it is expanding into. Atheist are arguing about specific Gods. . .Gods like Allah, Yahweh, Ra, Zeus, all the pantheon of the Greek Gods, pantheon of Hindu Gods etc.

See as you just wide ya yansh for middle of national assembly, begin dey s.hit lie commot, you no get shame at all.

Atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods - - - however defined!

Cretin!

Ya jerry-curl pastor sef!

Rhino.5dm:
Without God there wont be a theist,and without a theist there wont be an Atheist.

Word!

abeg make we just free ol' uncle Mo, make im dey nack 5 year old girls for heaven dey go

SMH!

Enigma:
Oh, and on the point whether something preceded the universe, the evangelical atheists, if they want to be intellectually honest, do not need to ask silly questions here; instead, let us see them engaging with the well known arguments e.g. distinguishing between a necessary being and contingent beings or arguments for e.g. a Prime mover, a First Cause, an Uncaused cause ------ the kind of thing that eventually persuaded the evangelical atheists’ long time champion, Antony Flew, to renounce atheism as the evangelical atheists seem to hate to hear.

Dem no fit, e pass demm mumu brain

Idehn:
Unless that something else, transformed all or part of itself to produce the "new" something, no. What you seem to be suggesting would violate the very premise you are assuming to be true. If something cannot come from nothing, then it would be just as illogical to posit that something else caused something to come from nothing.

If I yab u now. . . .see as you jus dey display foooolishness compounded with illiteracy. Shame no even catch you sef?

Where I talk say “something else caused something to come from nothing”? ? ? ? ? ?

Abeg just show me where I talk am, otherwise SHARRRRAPPP DIA, IDIOT.

I posited that something cannot derive from nothing, and that remains consistent. That is common logic, which even a kindergarten child can grasp as being sound and true. I did not say that something else caused the universe to come from nothing. Stop foisting lies on me. In actual fact, my belief is that God caused the universe to come into existence from the substance of his being. That is not nothingness, you quadriplegic numbskull.  

Under the premise, if something exist now, it must have always existed prior, even if it was in another form.

Cra.p. You are just an asinine student of illogic. Under the premise, if something exists now, then something else must have preceded and caused it. Finito.

How hard is that for your thick numbskull? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I do not know. I do not and cannot know everything.

Hallelujah. Ergo, you also cannot know for a fact that God does not exist.  

Again I do not know the state of the Universe prior to the big b.ang.

See as fear dey catch you. You be ole, original coward. Why you dey lie. Abi science no talk say na single point be the state of the universe before big b.ang? Ode oshi.

I nor get ya time jaare.  

All I know is that you are boastfully pushing a logically incoherent proposition, contrary to your initial premises. Are you trying to suggest, that the Universe could not change states prior to the big ba.ng? Even though at every other point in time  following the big b.ang it could?

You nor even fear to just dey lie reke reke, up and down the whole place for broad day light. How the universe don change form since the big bang, abeg, tell me. E don turn to egusi soup?

Norr lie jaare. E nefa chage form since big ba.ng at all at all. E just dey expand, simple. That one no be change of form.

Ode oshi.

Useless akata man.

Even when the premises the big ba.ng is based on, the conservation of energy/momentum/mass, required that it do just that?

Wetin cause am, simple. No long tin.

1) Do you accept that something does not come from nothing?

Yes ke,

2) Do you agree with the conservation laws of energy/momentum/mass?

Yes ke,

3) Do you agree that these laws are an extension of 1)?

Yes ke,

4)Do you agree with the big ba.ng theory?

Yes ke,

5) Do you agree that the Universe is constantly changing form/states?

THIS ONE NA CAPITAL LIE: UNIVERSE DEY EXPAND, SIMPLE.

Wetin e don change to?

Cretin.

If the answer is yes to all then, why is it illogical to think that the Universe existed in a different form/state prior to the big ba.ng?

It is not illogical. You are not following.

Why is it illogical to think that the Universe, existed in a different form prior to that?

Single dot na universe? Okay, make we say na universe. Wetin come cause am to change now? Wetin cause the expansion. Be specific. Don’t simply try to escape by vaguely mumbling “energy, mass, etc”. Be specific.

Why is it illogical to think that it has always existed if only with a different form?

1. Single dot na universe?
2. If single dot come turn to universe, wetin cause that change? Ehn? Ehn? Ehn? Magic, abi? Oloshi.
3. If single dot don exist forever, why e no turn to universe before? Why na that particular moment im come turn to univas? Ehn?

Siddon one side, joo, anuofia.

YOU NO INTELLIGENT AT ALL – ONE KOBO!