₦airaland Forum

LOL

HCpaul:
Longest time bro....

hey bro, yeah long time ..

ChemicalReaction:
Whatever rocks their boat!

Exactly - now you get the point

ChemicalReaction:
Our God is supreme! And other gods can be subdued by him..

Don't you think others all still feel the same way about their God in contrast to yours?

lordnicklaus:
I cannot really get my fingers on that.

Don't you think this statement of yours makes it seem so?
" Nature itself plays a part in ensuring man is safe from the effects of its burning rage. "

jiggaz:
loooool.... my brother sorry to burst your bubble but you were never a Christian, you were just a church goer, sorry.

Aren't you guys tired of using this same old stale line?

It's tired, boring and cliche already, you guys should really come up with something new that makes you look less hypocritic and insane.

lordnicklaus:
Reality is experience in the making. It would sound weird to assume that since we cannot physically deduce the cubic expansivity of a liquid, that its fractional increase is abstract. Likewise we might not see God but would it still be logical to assume that God is merely the binding energy of the cosmos? Likewise, the "god matter" is extremely puny to the naked eye, but theoretically, it has been confirmed to be there and to be the supplementing intricate universal constituent. Most scientific facets have not been witnessed in reality but can we deem science as wrong? Likewise the existence of God is not a conceptual piece we should entirely doubt. CC ValentineMary donnffd johnydon22 shadeyinka butterfly88 raphiemontella.

Good thoughts brother, love it - i have been terribly busy lately brother.. My grandma's burial is coming up next week plus work, i barely have time to discuss.

I'd have loved to take part in this intellectual squabble - maybe after everything i'll be back to discuss extensively once more

lordnicklaus:
Yes, I made reference to that on the discussion thread using the earth's magnetic shield as example. It shields from harmful solar radiations, one threat nature poses.

But do you think this shield was a deliberate plot of nature to shield man ?

lordnicklaus:
Man, though referred to as the best of creatures by the Bible doesn't make him the chief of the cosmic path. Chronologically, man was the last to be made, so he is definitely made to harness nature. If nature was made for man, then he would be created before such magnificent cosmic order. Nature itself plays a part in ensuring man is safe from the effects of its burning rage. Man is embedded in nature, he is nature and he adapts to nature. Nature and man are complementary each playing a part in the vast cosmos. The earth is but like an electron revolving round a stellar nucleus within a universal atom and that makes it but a speck amongst a sand bank of the entire planetary orbs. Man, though special is at the mercy of nature sometimes but he definitely has the intellect to curb the very threat nature poses to his survival. Nature itself provides a way out. So, man and nature are complementary.

Cc johnydon22 DoctorAlien dorox butterfly88 ValentineMary ifenes cloudgoddess

We can also say this for every specie on this planet not just man ..Yes?

i'm interested in the bolded - please eloborate on how that is so?

Good thoughts KingEtiensky, beautiful speculations filled with depth and philosophical alacrity - But just like the end part it falls back down to "What if"

I totally disagree with that absolute notion of matter being unable to create mind -

First we have to understand is, in the discipline Science Empiricism is the method of confirmation and the hallmark of falsification and substantiation which ever way the postulation tilts but is not the only means of scientific deduction.

Science utilizes Reason and logic in the development of a thesis but empiricism confirms and provides a certainty of the eventuality.

So Logical and rational assumption while deep and a gate way to outstanding exploration to the problems that plagues us is not entirely or reliable in an average sense since without empiricism it is blind.

Einstein's rational and logical assumption could have been right but at the same time it could have been wrong and Newton's could have been right as well as being wrong.

Empiricism stepped in and that blindness of logical and rational speculations of both Newton and Einstein were illuminated and certainty was ensured.

In ancient Natural Philosophy, it took rationalization and simple logic to conclude the sun went round the earth just like the moon.

It was rational to think that but also blind in essence as certainty is lacking.

Newton proposed a static universe, a force of attraction between matter, Einstein also agreed with a static and eternal universe but rather a fabric-like Space/time.

Edwin Hubble an empiricist both illuminated those rational assumptions and gave a torch of certainty to these assumptions.

And that opinion of a static universe was shattered.

Aristotle while being a very brilliant and logical fellow tendered a very rational explanation of why objects in motion slow down and eventually stop.

He postulated that "Objects in motion gets tired that is why they slow down and eventually comes to a halt.

This we agree is a rational conclusion since this holds true to willful motions but even though rational it wasn't true to the motions of Physical values


Without empiricism, Einstein's theory will be uncertain to us cus while very logical and rational it may be wrong or may be right, so we are roped within the confines of uncertainty..

So while we agree rationalism and logic can lead on a deep exploration of what is or might be, we also should agree that without empiricism it is blind in essence.


Same way we could infer without rationalism and logic empiricism crawls.

So science both encompasses both logical, rational and empirical limbs in it's quest to ascertain what is.

Now for Consciousness as i have maintained, human study both in a logical and empirical sense has not been able to quantify in certainty of it's whole manifestations because the mind being the totality of conscious value can be likened to the universe.

And just as we are minute and can deduct the many things in the universe it will be hard to encompass in all certainty the totality of universal manifestations.

so too is to us the evasive nature of consciousness to our perception.

When we delve deep into the Quantum world we will understand that matter is not really as minutely spooky as we think so i'd like us not to limit the possibilities of manifestations as regards matter.

In our understanding now, Consciousness cannot be expressly unrelated to perceptiveness and perceptiveness at minute level in unity defines consciousness.

So is life a union of matter and mind? if this is so as a philosophical rationalization may stress then this totally breaks the relationship between perceptibility and Mind.

Is the 'Mind' a conscious thinking nothingness?

If perceptibility defines the basis of the mind and perceptibility cannot be distinguished from the confines of matter as we know, how then can 'mind' be without perception and perception without matter?


So maybe we should rethink the nature of matter, maybe the problem is not in matter not being able to give rise to consciousness even though it seems so it still is not convincing to us but rather in the way or the confines of limited expectations we rope around the manifestations or abilities of matter

Then in a rational and logical sense maybe it is our own perception of matter is lacking, maybe it is our own understanding of matter wanting and not the eventuality of what matter can do.

So while we are in the drawing board of coming up with a convincing explanation to sate our awe of consciousness, let us not make the mistake of placing a limiting lid to the important and curious aspect of this enquiry which is matter.

Therefore i beg to infer that even though we have not in all certainty deducted the nature of the totality of consciousness, placing restrictions will only diminish the sphere of where our enquiry can reach.

Judging 'matter' on the surface places us in a position of placing a lid over the possibilities of what is, might or can be.

So maybe we should rethink our perception of matter and it's manifestations or fairly not put a lid what we imagine or think it can do and this i believe is a rational insertion.

We may not yet have answered this question that plagues us, i totally agree with you that we do not sorely depend on rationalism or empiricism or the bounds of our deductions will be greatly diminished.

so in our quest to find out what is, empirico-rationalism as science utilizes gives a promise of inferring a certain solution to the problem but while at it there is need to broaden our scope of rational and empirical enquiry.

One of the implications of the copernican realization was a demotion of man's imagined importance, a cold realization that almost certainly sealed the willingness of few to embrace a humanity humbled before the depth of the cosmos.

In his work ' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium' Nickolas Copernicus dealt a terrible blow to the arrogance or ego that comes with dogmatic deductions. Truths derived from the need to feel good, important, valuable and loved and not based on clear cut objectivity and fact no matter how cold or depressing.

Copernicus who lived at a time when Geocentrism or Tychonic model was the conventional view of the cosmos - the view that the earth is the center of the universe, every other celestial body [sun, planets, stars] all went round it.

Through series of pain staking astronomical observation Copernicus formulated the theory that

The sun was fixed like every other star is and so is the center of the universe, that the earth and other plantery orbs travelled round the sun

A view he presented with a trembling mind at the astronomical, philosophical and religious implications it would stir, the unmerciful criticism it would incure.

A view that led the protestant theologian Philip Melanchthon to assert

" Some people believe that it is excellent and correct to work out a thing as absurd as did that Sarmatian [Polish] astronomer who moves the earth and stops the sun. Indeed, wise rulers should have curbed such light- mindedness."

An idea later would be responsible for the bane of the famous scientific revolutionalist Galileo Galilei who embraced the copernican idea and for that faced severe trials from the church of which on one of such trials Saint Bernad said

"To assert that the earth went round the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Christ was not born of a virgin"

Gelileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for this unconventional view of a universe not centered around Earth ultimately man.

In the philosophical and theological stand point it both contradicted the scriptures and the idea of 'Precious earth of the God(s)/God' that the earth was just a follower in the system of worlds and not the leader, the chief focus or the herder of the orbs.

There is a humbling realization in the awe inspiring reality that nature poses, a grandeur that marvels even our most egoistic of minds, a mystery that stretches us to our uttermost vulnerable limit.

Holding on to the view that 'Nature was made for man' is inconsistent with the secrets that nature subtly whisper in the cosmic tunes derived by our observation and experiences that we are also being forced towards a new copernican realization - we almost certainly exist as if we don't.

Let us for once leave the comfort zone of observing the cosmos from the earthly perspective and view it from outside to the inside. here we'll be faced with an almost infinite cosmos of the brightest lights buttered in the deepest of darkness, an almost wave-like pattern of tiny lights swimming in the vastness of the deep.

Approaching these tiny lights a magnificent structure is revealed, a grand relation of celestial candles and orbs, cloud and dust all bound by the ever reaching hands of gravity, dancing, wobbling and nodding round the interference of each other's tune - Galaxies.

Within these galaxies are ranges of members, from the dark matter galaxies with a weird collection of a few hundred normal stars to dward galaxies of a few million stars and planets to the average galaxies of hundreds of billion stars up to the gigantic galaxies with trillions and hundreds of trillions of these celestial light mostly trailed with accompanying orbs [planets].

And these galaxies in single numberings estimate up to hundreds of billions.

Then we travel towards the virgo super cluster, a local cluster of millions of galaxies all clustered in hundreds of galactic groups.

And in one lone corner seats an average galaxy the milky way, with billions of stars and likewise planets all making silent whispers in their cosmic songs, deep within billions of these stars in a remote corner of the milky way seats an average star and within the system of the small sun lost in vastness of a humoungous lot is a small planet, one of the smallest of it's comrades, seats within a fortunate range from it's host star.

Approaching this deep blue world, it is silent, seems almost like no activity thrives within, like a dust suspended in a sun beam

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/voyager1palebluedot.jpg The pale blue dot

On appraoching this dust, more intrinsic features becomes visible but still seems dormant and quiet then on coming really close to this dot a thriving bustling plain of activity is unraveled, within the skin of this blue dot are ceaseless activities.

A curious species are part of this ceaseless activities within this little world - Man. We are each of us very tiny beings permitted to ride on the outermost skin of one the smallest planets for a few dozen trips around a local star.

But within our lowly position in all that the cosmos is, we in ourselves source for meaning and purpose, source for value that we create these for ourselves and create in ourselves purposes that puts us behind the triger causlity of nature - All that is was for us

Our lives are no more than a blink in the cosmic duration, our world no more than a lost grain of sand in a beach with infinite grains of sands.

I remember as a child lifting stones to find all kinds of creatures living underneath, oblivious magnificent creatures crawling in their majesty in a world so perfect - would i blame them to believe all that the earth is was made just to accomodate them?

I'm certain we would laugh at the grandeur of such naive delusion but we also in our own naivete and unthinkable ego even in our insignificance would love to think that all that nature is was made just for us

In the course of our study to understand ourselves and what we are, we have resorted to studying what lies before us and an uncaring world is revealed right before us.

Since the inception of life on earth there has been no less than 5 events leading to an almost catastrophic demise of all life on earth yet these uncaring accidental catastrophe steered the very course of the evolutionary journey of the present lives on earth including man.

Such a hostility in a world supposedly made for us poses a bag of question and almost certainly portrays a sinister purpose behind this model.

Hurricane matthew one of the most recent card of natural uncareness, an unmatched beast of the winds tearing through the unhabited forests to the vast carpet of water up to the fully inhabited cities alike portrays a rather indifference in it's hostility, the same severity witnessed by the lonely forest was witnessed by the bustlin cities, no special treatment was accorded.

How so can we be treated like everyother things of lesser value to us is being treated in this cosmic arena - have we not lied to ourselves that we possess a more deserving position than all others?

We are part of nature, a tiny bit in a vast oneness and so we must humbly embrace our place in this oneness, because by understanding this oneness we understand ourselves.

Most of all our answers as regarding cosmic questions that concerns us has always being aimed at satisfying our own need to feel good for being here, to comfort our vulnerability and to provide succor to our lost selves.

We have sought for meaning and value in order to derive a need to be and a need to continue but i think that the reason behind this is that the very meaninglessness of our existence forces man to create his own meaning, in judging all that the universe reveals the most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent.

But if we come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death - our own existence as a species can have geniune meaning fulfilment.

However deep the darkness is we must supply our own light.

often mistakes we make is that we look for things like love, meaning and purpose like these can be found in the back yard, looking under or on top of the bed bunk - The most profound minds are ones that realize that we make our love and our meaning and generate our own motivation.

Man is no different from nature, he is part of nature and to deny that is to deny the very essence of our being and to think ourselves the purpose behind nature is to assume that every other part of nature is subject to our own meaning - Even to the most subtle of minds nature has never ceased to show that :

it is indifferent to itself of which we are a part of

By Johnydon22

Cc. Seun [Please move to FP] Loj, dorox, lordnicklaus, DoctorAlien, ValentineMary, Bytehead

Isn't it a cool story?

-Create a vulnerable human
-put him in the same garden with a snake that is more clever than them
-make them unable to know right from wrong
-then put a tree you don't want them to eat right there with them
-get angry when they eat it [even tho they do not know right and wrong before eating it]
-Blame them for your incompetence and their niavete
-then blame all humanity including the unborn ones for it.

If this story is not an exhibition of pure madness then i wonder what else it is..

This is what happens when you take Jewish folklore too serious

butterfly88:
ok then

1) we have the force of gravity,electromagnetism,weak and the strong nuclear force and many many more like the nuclear efficiency,the cosmological constant,the plank's length....all these forces maintains a short range of values which if exceeded in the slightest will cause the universe to operate in a strange way and even render it hostile to life

take for example the strong nuclear force, if it was say 1.99% stronger it will greatly affect the fusion of stars, i bet you know what this means.if not it simply means there will be no hydrogen in the universe,
you should know what this means

also if the force of electromagnetism was a bit weaker or stronger the universe will die out in no time(short lived)

as for your 2nd question...I think the above explains them too..to further clarify take the quote below

The laws of science, as we presently know, contain many fundamental numbers(constants), e.g the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron, .. The fascinating thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life--stephen hawking

cc.johnydon22

what is your opinion about this?

My opinion is represented above with the Puddle and amoeba analogy

oh christ not again please, ayam just tired of this govt and useless 'we will'...

https://www.choosewiselybook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/eye-roll.jpg

hahn:
Johnnydon22, these people are making it harder for you to argue in their favor that they are not insane

honestly

lordnicklaus:
This thread is meant to be an advice to both theists and atheists and not to defame them. Below are common mistakes I have noticed on this board and adjustments should be made to them.

MISTAKES THEISTS MAKE

1. Telling Atheists That They Are Angry With God:

The common trend amongst some theists on this section is the statement "You don't believe in God because you are angry with him". It is simply a sad attempt at debating or engaging in discussions with atheists. Most of them do not believe in aliens and that does not mean they feel resentment towards extraterrestrial life. This would only see an almost perfect discussion ending in exchange of swear words.


2. Threatening Atheists With Hell:
I do not believe in hell and even if you do, please keep your belief to yourself. When most theists on this section are unable to disprove an atheistic notion, they resort to threats of eternal frying telling atheists about the dread of hell and this is quite hurtful.

3. Asking Atheists To Change Their Names If It Alludes Or Pertains To God:
What is your business if their names contain an ascribation to God? I saw a thread pertaining to this recently on this board and even if I didn't reply to it, it was quite annoying and sad.

4. Telling Atheists That They Are Possessed: This claim is a sister to the first. Some theists on this board call atheists "demon possessed" or have inscribed atheism on the tablet of Satanism or Luciferanism. For God sake, they are just giving their opinions and this doesn't mean they get their answers from Satan.

It is true that they are being skeptic of our views but since we do not agree with their notion, we are also "skeptics" of atheism. So skepticism is intrinsic to both parties.

MISTAKES ATHEISTS MAKE

1. Criticising Roughly:
Some of our atheistic friends on this board make a mistake of criticizing roughly. We have them saying things like "Jesus is a bastard" or "What can your f*cking God do?" and this gives other theists the effontery to call them "sadists" or "God-haters". Criticism is accepted, but please criticise nicely and if you must do so, do it in peace and you will get a nice answer from a willing theist in return.

2. Expecting Their Notions To Affect Only The Christians' View:
We have threads like "Reading This Will Make You Throw Your Bibles Away" or "No Intellectual Christian Will Remain A Christian After Reading This". Isn't an atheistic proposition supposed to touch members of all religions? Remember, religion doesn't imply only Abrahamism and Yahweh isn't the only one worshipped by a religious sect?
3. Bashing Into Threads Pertaining To Christianity Unwelcomed:
Most theists, Christians to be exact do not like this. There are certain discussions in which atheists are allowed to share their opinions but it is restricted to threads pertaining the debate about God's existence and not threads meant to discuss doctrines or issues within the confines of Christianity.

If we can all do this, then Nairaland religion section will be free of insults, hatred and taunts.

I couldn't agree more - let me add again.

- Thinking atheism means intellectual superiority [by some atheists]

-Thinking theism means moral superiority.. [By some theists]

NobleRomm:
....
where are u from

Enugu

In a random dirty puddle in the ground an amoeba lives, the puddle has just the right temperature, just the right salinity and texture and so the amoeba thinks

"This puddle must certainly have been made specially for me"

This is the situation here, just like the amoeba the fact that we are means the universe can accomodate us, if this was a universe that cannot accomodate us, we won't be here and we won't ask this question.

In this cosmic causality there are two possibilities.

-either the universe can accomodate life
-or it can't

So do you think one part of the coin is likely without interference from extra-cosmic intelligence and not the other half, the possibility is like a coin tose so both are equally fully possible with or without such external interference

But just like the amoeba - We found ourselves in a universe that can accomodate us therefore we begin to think that the universe was made just to accomodate us.

That is a grand delusion of the amoeba -

99.9% of the universe is hostile to organic molecules [ultimately life] i wonder how such a hostile universe was caused with a purpose of harbouring life in mind cus it seems that is a project gone wrong.

It is absurd to assume that all the universe is was tweeked just for you..

herald9:
It doesn't make it less designed, but makes it less habitable.
Just like if errors were discovered in the Burj Khalifa tower in Dubai, it could've been certified misfit for habitation.
But considering the fact that the earth has the right proportion of everything to support life raises another question as to why there must be catastrophes that endangers the very lives it was designed to habit.

This brought me to the conclusion that maybe this design was programmed to accommodate this mishaps as means of check and balance. After all the world is made up of opposites - good and evil, life and death, North and South, Male and female, etc.

I don't think it's a mistake. Just maybe the designer has no feelings. Or maybe its sense of empathy is complicated... Just as how complex the earth is.

the errors in the Burj Khalifa was a mistake on the part of the executioners of the project - so how so is the 'dangerous' factors of nature that makes it less habitable not likely a mistake from an evolving intellect? [remember something doesn't need to perfect to design anything]

hahn:
True.

But then he can still be most high. That would explain a lot of things

when someone argues design, it doesn't necessarily mean the Abrahamic God(s)...

DoctorAlien:
NIV omits some verses of the Bible and then indicates in the footnote that "some manuscripts add that verse." However, how do you explain the fact that NIV omits Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:3-4, without adding "some manuscripts add..." to the footnote? This is to name but a few.

I can say I'm a scientist. Bring whatever you have to support your arguments.

Please what branch of science brother?

Eddlad:
You got the verse Jesus directs his follows to sell stuff to people? I know you don't know this, but Christianity means followers of Christ. Tailor your future posts with this in mind.

I tailor my posts with exactly what your religion does, you may claim what ever you like - exactly not my business.

NobleRomm:
igbo kwenu....!!!

Iyaaaaaaaaa... nnam dalu ..

Miriam19:
Not my business

then you should have simply skipped the thread...

Biggest circus show in the world just turned out to be Christianity.

stephenmorris:
what do you understand by religion

A set of belief, rituals and doctrines followed by a group of people.

hahn:
No it doesn't. Unless the designer of something shabby is claiming to be perfect.

Can shabbiness be the product of something perfect?

exactly flaws do not negate design but only shows imperfection on the part of the designer.

So [if the universe was designed] flaws in universe shows it was not made by anything perfect therefore the ideas of [perfect creators] do not hold but an imperfect one does.

herald9:
I used to be an ardent believer of intelligent design, but the many catastrophes that have been ravaging the earth from time immemorial and even recently made me shift towards the fence.

Nowadays I don't even know what to think anymore.

Like, if I was to design a house, I would strive to make it safe that the occupants can sleep with all eyes closed and not fearing the roof caving in or other unforseen mishaps.
The safety and durability of the building will give credence to my abilities, qualifications, etc. But otherwise would raise many questions to the latter, and hence, undermines the 'intelligence' in the design.

But I think this could be explained away by citing the forces that is at work on the earth - one trying to pull it together and one trying to rip it apart. The tension created in these tug of war-like situation sparks off catastrophes since there's nothing regulating these two forces....

Does a flaw in a design make the construct any less designed? It just shows the designer to be a pretty terrible/shabby designer or is just learning making mistakes while at it..

So does flaws really negate design?

Niflheim:
@Johnnydon22,

Nature was definitely not made for man!!! If it were, then how does one explain all the natural things in Nature that can kill a man?
1.Naturally occuring Radon gas

2.Malaria

3.Hurricanes

4.Molten magma

5.Poisonous snakes

6.Wild apricots

7.Hemlock

8.Floods

9.Meteorite strikes

10.Lightening

This is as ridiculous as saying that, "the tape worm found a comfortable home in the 4 year old child's stomach, with enough food and nourishment, so therefore, the child was must have been created to house the tape worm!!!"

I have seen instances of "Air bags" in cars responsible for the death of the car passangers, does this then mean 'Air bags' were not made with 'passengers' in mind?

lordnicklaus:
Good thread @ johnydon22. Sorry I replied late. Nature follows an order inherent to itself. For every indifference nature poses, man has always come out victorious, conquering every pangs of disasters and rage of mother nature. This complex ecosystem has been programmed to withstand every ounce of fury that ravages its entire biosphere, it would seem man was made to adapt to nature. The earth itself was placed beyond the sphere of solar chaos being engulfed in a magnetic field that shields its entire atmosphere from the power of solar radiations. So I would say nature and man are complementary.

In order words Man was made to adapt to nature and not nature made for man?

It's time i answered this question

UyiIredia:
I've got several questions for johnnydon22

1) What's your best reason for not believing in God?

Basically lack of empirical back up, hidding behind ignorance, absurdity of superstition..

2) Do you believe in evolution?

Nature is constantly changing and getting more complex so evolution is a FACT of nature and i agree with it..

How biological evolution occurred/ trends and sequencies we are yet to fully grasp.

3) How open are you about your atheism and what's been the response?

Pretty open even at work, All my siblings know except my parents [for obvious reasons, i don't need troubles] but my parents do know i am indifferent on religious matters.

Responses: well sometimes funny, when people learn i'm atheistic there'd be first like "What?!!!" then they'd be so eager to do God a favour by engaging me and they'd leave with a lot more questions in their mind and a bit of doubt than what they came with.

Most people i know respect me, many admire my guts and others just think that being smart makes one arrogant to reject "god'therefore loathe my willingness to engage when pricked.

4) What could convince you that God exists?

Empirical substantiation - like that particular God that wants to prove itself shows up.

That'd be all.

ok

Lets watch the debate from here... I won't in unless asked to