₦airaland Forum

Jozzy4:
It's says nothing ??

Yes. it says nothing.

Do u recognize a key and padlock as designs ??

Of course that I recognize them as design speaks to elements that constitute design and that is my question.

What are the things you observe in key and padlock that informs you that they were designed? How do you recognize design?

Jozzy4:
Thats why he is God. If he needed something to make him exist, then he isn't.

Well, the premise of the argument is "everything requires a cause" and the only way to excuse God in view of that premise will be to invalidate the premise.

Let me illustrate with Key and padlock ... U will call that a design ? Now compare the human sex organs and tell me its not a design

I'm sorry but this says nothing about how one can recognize design, which is my question

Dtruthspeaker:
Thank God you said "if".

Isn't that the entire premise of the thread? "Man is evil by nature. God should destroy the world"

Hence, if Man is evil by nature, God created man, then the nature of man is from God.

God must possess great evil to create beings that are, by nature, evil.

BigBashiru:
- Man beheaded friend over N13m

- Personal Assistant kills and dismembers Gokada CEO

If man is evil by nature, what does that say about God?

Because, God must have to contain an infinite amount of evil to consistently Chun out creations that are inherently evil.

XXXXTENTACION:
Because the general perception for perfection is something that has no mistakes and inconsistencies.

So, why are you assuming there is a mistake or inconsistency in creation if you have no model to what exactly the creator intended?

XXXXTENTACION:
in essence you are saying that a world filled with disasters, troubles, pain and suffering is a perfect world to you right

I am saying there is no such thing as a perfect world. And the world is as it should for meaning or purpose to be remotely present

XXXXTENTACION:
Because the general perception for perfection is something that has no mistakes and inconsistencies.

So, in what way do you judge mistakes? What gave you the impression that the creator made any mistake it what it wanted to create?

How is that a more suitable thought than the idea that it created exactly what it wanted to.

XXXXTENTACION:
A perfect world to me would be a world without pain and sorrow would'nt that be a good idea to you.

So, why does your standard of perfection have to apply to that of the creator?

kingxsamz:
How does heaven work?
Do you have freewill there?

I do not believe in heaven. It has nothing to do with my questions

XXXXTENTACION:
If God was perfect why did he create a world filled with so much imperfection.


a world filled with disasters, tornadoes, earthquakes, landslides, flood, hurricanes and volcanoes.


a world filled with so much suffering and pain.


*note*

this thread is for an open discussion and debate everyone is entitled to drop their own opinions there should be no insult just an open debate.

Why would you want to live in a perfect world?

Or, perhaps, could it be that your idea of perfection is simply things that work for you?

What makes you believe that perfection would mean same to you as it does to anything that created the world?

And assuming perfection doesn't mean same to you as it does to the creator, what do you think the creator's intent would be? Create a world that works perfectly as he Intends or a world that works as you intend?

Engeniu:
The word "perfect" is based on man's definition of things, and that stems from his understanding. Man's understanding is limited:

This is quite reasonable. In a sense, humans assuming their idea of perfection defines what is perfect would be an arrogant thought.

UncleSnr:
I would have said "I" but I no get phone talk more of data.

wetin you use dey post now

dorox:
Count me in. How do you propose we do it?

Email me your number my guy

One of the most surprising detail of Socrates's life is that he had no love for democracy. He thinks public voting is a joke and is supremely dangerous to the country.

Hear me out:

Socrates illustrated his argument with an analogy of a ship. He likened a country with a ship, a ship nevigating a turbulent water of uncertaintities (let's say this water represents the economic, defense, social, etc aspects of society)

He asked a question, if you were on a ship, and the election for a captain is about to be held. Would you rather have a few members of the ship who are well versed in navigation and ship maneuvering make this decision or would you rather have it be open to everyone, most of which, have no single clue what even makes a ship move?

Take your time to think about that question.

Done?

Let's proceed.

Can you give a reason for either of your answer?

Can you tell us why you'd prefer only those who are well versed about ships and navigation make the choice for who the captain would be?

Or,

Tell us why you'd prefer for those who don't, mostly a majority to make this decision?

Now, liken this scenario to the Nigerian democratic system - an open for all voting system.

Let's for this post assume that the election is fair and free, open to every one.

Do you think, a population that has an extreme degree of uninformed populace would make better voting choices as it concerns the economic, social and other aspects of politics?

When Buhari posited he'd make $1 = N1 how many of the Sai Babarians understood how this can be achieved in order to vet 'if, it can, at all be done?'

Wouldn't a more informed cacus see through the rigmaroles of a political wooing and make better and informed votes that have high chances of getting it right than a system controlled by sheer number of a largely illiterate group who even though are grossly ignorant of the implications of their choices can be easily swayed by sweetcoated promises they hardly even grasp its intricacies?

Do you think, like Socrates, that the Nigerian democracy isn't a good idea?

Would you prefer a certain criteria such as (level of education and income status or simply those who demonstrates they have and can think about this rationally) become significant determinants for voting status? Or would you have it free for all?

On one hand, an intellectual voting system, or a voting right by birthright.

Do you think we have more chances of getting it right if we cast our net into a bigger pool of informed voters as opposed to painfully uninformed ones?

Which do you prefer and why?

CAPSLOCKED:
HOW YOU GO TAKE SERVE ME BEER AS WE DE DISCUSS DE GO NAIM BE THE PROBLEM.

You go buy am yourself

In the spirit of covid-19 self isolation, maybe we could have discussions about some of the topics we have treated here over video chat

CoolUsername:
Spoken like a true Southerner! In northern Nigeria, which accounts for than half of the country's population, Islam is dominant, to the point that most of it's states practice Sharia law with some even having religious (read: Islamic) police.

Now let's compare Sharia law to the law in Nigeria. While it is no secret that Nigeria is a deeply homophobic country and that homosexuality is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment, Sharia states in Nigeria give the death penalty, i.e. death by stoning for a consensual act. The only people you'd see stoning people to death in the 21st century are Muslims.



I'm not saying it is as a result of Christianity. I'm saying that Christianity allowed it to happen because its teachings make concessions to the law of the land which later evolved into the separation of church if state.

'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to the Lord what is the Lord's'

Verses like that one lays the foundation for what helped to divorce the government from religion.



I'm specifically telling you how it was Christians ended slavery. I'm not saying it was because of Christianity or it was because of any biblical teaching but the truth is that people who identified as Christians were the ones who fought to end it.



Any time I argue with an Islamic apologist we always run into this particular roadblock. Yes, I know that Christians sucked throughout history and many still suck till today but the fact is that they generally don't suck as hard as they used to. Muslims, OTOH, have committed atrocities through history and are still committing atrocities till this very day. Modern Christianity is several orders of magnitude better than modern Islam.

For example, you can tell me that both Christians and Muslims are homophobic but when we look at the facts we see the that the Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding while the Muslim throws gays off buildings. At that point is it really honest to say they are just as bad as each other?



Hitler said a lot of things about God over the years but to imply that he was a Christian is quite a reach. He may have believed in God but there isn't much evidence that he was a Christian.



Ah sh*t, here we go again. All I am saying is that modern Christianity is the lesser (way way lesser) of the two evils when compared with modern Islam.



I agree with this but the reason such a change is difficult in Islam is due to the nature of the religious itself, Islam specifically dictates the culture of the people and the law of land, there is little wiggle room for reformation without both social and legal backlash which could be violent in nature.



When the Muslim population reaches a certain size relative to the local population, who will be the Europeans fighting against Sharia?



Yet, we still warn people about the dangers of smoking and drunk driving. The fact that western culture will evolve doesn't mean it has to be because of Islam.

A few years back, Sweden released a weak, simpering PSA advising immigrants to stop having sexual relations with underage girls because it is against the law of the land. It really has me thinking, is this the standard they're going to hold the millions of immigrants who are coming in to? Because if it is Europe is screwed.



The answer is no.

But it your definition of these terms is also important. Is it sexist to acknowledge the fact that since testosterone is linked to aggression and the average man has far more than the average woman, then men are, on average, more aggressive than women? Would it be sexist to acknowledge that since men have a wider IQ distribution than women, it may partially account for higher male prison population and likewise the higher population of make CEOs?

Is it racist to acknowledge crime statistics by race? Like how black people are overrepresented in violent crime statistics in most western countries. Would it be racist to say African technology was more primitive than that of the Europeans and Asians during at the time Europe made first contact? Would it be racist to point out how Nigeria and South Korea gained their independence around the same time and had a similar GDP but since then South Korea has grown exponentially while Nigeria is...well...Nigeria?

So before you call me Islamophobic you need to take the facts into account .

Damn dude!!! That was good!!! I enjoyed every bit of your comment here.

CoolUsername:
Call it racist or eurocentric, it doesn't change the fact that western culture is a successful one which is why so many Africans and middle easterners run from their failed states to find a better life in Europe. Nigeria is a good example of one of those failed states.



Thanks for bringing up North America, what exactly happened to the Native Americans when the Europeans came? What happened to the Aborigines when the Europeans came? They became minorities in their own land, their culture was decimated, the Europeans brought western values into the land, and those places became a part of the West.

The same would happen in Europe, Muslims will bring in their Islamic culture and unless you're cool with living in Middle East-lite, you may have reservations. Islam does not tolerate dissent, it violently opposes gay rights, women's rights and is inherently antithetical to a lot of western values.



That is no reason to actively encourage the destruction your culture. Cultural integration occurs naturally between compatible cultures, this is an unnatural push by greedy globalists to import cheap labour at the expense of the little guy.

Read up rape statistics in Sweden, read up on the Islamic child-rape gangs in the UK that specifically targeted poor white girls and was downplayed by the police.

If things continue like this resentment is going to build up all over Europe. The pendulum always swings to the extreme before it settles down.

I agree with you 100%

It is no news that given the changing perception bordering moral issues, many religions are compelled to subtly shift their moral stance to sometimes, completely opposite arrangement to their previous stance. But what does this fluidity in moral stance imply for a religious organization?

Most religious people don't realize it but change in religious moral stance invalidates its claim on objective truth.

Let me explain.

Saint Augustine once said "If you believe some part of the scripture and not the others, it is not the scripture you believe but yourself"

Religion is built on the principle that its moral prescriptions are based on objective codecs inspired by the very creator of the universe.

Take Christianity for example. In Christian theology, the following follows:

1. God is the source and authority of fundamental Christian moral positions.

2. God is infallible and cannot make mistakes or lie.

3. The bible (New Testament as it applies in Christianity) contains words inspired by God himself (word of God)

4. By this virtue of being the word of God, the bible is an infallible source of morality and truth.

Now, given the above premises, why would a Christian's moral outlook based on biblical provisions change?

If it does, it puts the infallibility of God, whom by definition, is the source of this proscription, into question.

If God is infallible, his words would remain valid and true across time. Hence, if God says A is wrong then A remains wrong across every time.

If moral positions, supposedly inspired by God (canonized by orthodox tradition) changes, then in what way would one assert the truthfulness in Christian faith?

If a Christian can cherrypick which moral requirement he will obey and which he will not, is he not directly putting the infallibility of God or at least the validity of Orthodox canonization (bible) in question?

1. If he is questioning the infallibility of God, the very conception of God in Christian theology perishes. Because the only reason someone would take a moral stance opposite that of God whom he agrees to be infallible and absolutely good is only if such a person believes himself to be of better moral judgement than God. That implies that to this person, God is neither infallible nor absolutely good. That is what Christianity does when it takes moral stances consonant to biblical (God's) provisions.

2. On a second note, if a Christian takes a moral stance that is consonant to biblical stance, such a person questions the validity of orthodox sources (bible) on morality, then isn't he then questioning the orthodox source's validity on truth? Then, how is he sure anything recorded in the bible is in fact truth? Doesn't he in effect invalidate the very foundation of the Christian faith?

Religious people don't realize this, but the very idea that morality is from an Infallible source gives the subject a perpetual and unchanging nature.
The very idea that God, who is the sources of morality, is all good and infallible, means his moral laws are perpetually good and unchanging.

Then, the very practice of choosing what to agree to and what not to from orthodox sources invalidates the fundamental claim of truth from this sources.

A morality that can change is not from an objective infallible source
A morality that is from an infallible source cannot change.

Christians should In fact think about the implications the practice of moral cherrypicking have on the basis of their faith.
It not only invalidates their claim on truth, it refutes their conception of God.

Because you can't have it both ways. It is either God is infallible and absolutely good hence is moral provisions can neither change nor become less good.

Or, God isn't infallible and absolutely good, hence his moral provisions are subject to human revisions because we are somehow a much better judge of morality and goodness.

Choose!

LordReed:
Not when the proponents insist it has real world effects.

Fair enough

LordReed:
In this case, induction.

Isn't it a logical absurdity to expect induction on something that is by definition transcendent?

LordReed:
Demonstrated to be in agreement with reality.

How is something demonstrated to be in agreement with reality?

Through induction or deduction?

LordReed:
If one does exist it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be in fact existing. Also it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that I need to live my life according to rules that are said to have emanated from this supposedly existing being.

Demonstrated via induction or deduction?

jesusjnr:
Purpose!

If you still can't comprehend it, then I'm sorry i can't help you.

Only someone near insanity could digest such ghastly nonsense

jesusjnr:
No God doesn't exist! God lives!!!

God is existence itself, the Source of all life forms and existence!

God is not the I was, I would be, but the I Am!!!

That is I Am, in the past, I Am, in the present, I Am in the future, I Am till the end!!!

In short God is everything, and everything is God.

You find absurd meaningless jargons like this appealing I suppose?

God doesn't exist, he lives.

How does such bollocks make sense to you to warrant hitting submit?

I do not know. I'm however, not inclined to believe the claims that God exists especially personal God(s)

Tetehjewels:
in a nutshell you are a "Player". A logical Player with no foothold of your own.

Lol. I'm an atheist meaning I do not believe in God.

Like i said, my comment was not meant to digress so you can stop trying to make this a God vs Atheism thing.

Once you accept the faultiness of your premise, then I'm good with you.

My question still remains, how come scientists still lean on the Big bang theory as the origin of our universe when the law of conservation of mass calls it a foolish theory?

Because yet again, you are basing your question on a faulty assumption.

If the Big Bang is true, then as propounded, space, time and every physical law was directly as a result of it.

Your question assumes that the big bang which by definition preceeds physical laws is subject to it.

Do you, yet again, see the flaw of this premise too?

Even so, the Big bang still doesn't in anyway contradict the law of conservation of mass you have been tauting around here.

Can you focus now?

What do you think I have been doing?

Tetehjewels:
Took my time to go through your profile and came to the realization that you are an atheist which explains why you were a bit more fixated on using my post to try to shift things to Gods existence or lack of which is same as the other guy who earlier engaged me.

This is non sequitur, so I won't reply this statement.

Let's focus on the premise of the thread and the one I am refuting which is: You, implying that deduction is completely false.

However, since you are on the self refuting wagon i guess your comment as quoted below here also refutes your God does not exist proposition

If you know me well enough, you'd realise that I am a very open minded person who loves logic and philosophy.

Deduction (logic) or reason, makes approximation that may be true or not.

Induction empirically substantiates.

Deductive approach doesn't make multiverse theory true, it doesn't make it false, the problem is that you believe it makes it false, I am sure I have shown you the fault in that argument.

God also, derived through deduction, doesn't make it false. God may or may not exist. I can only be guilty of your flawed argument, if I insist that God is completely false because God as a transcendent quality cannot be observed but deduced, cannot be empirically proven rather conceived.

So, God is subject to deduction doesn't make God inexistent if God truly exist.

I'm guessing you didn't see this coming.

Your words imply that since something isn't inductive does not mean it is false.

"necessarily"

Mean it can be true or false.

But to assert that it is completely false is flawed.

Use this to refer to the existence of God or lack of and this shows your atheism is flawed.

Lol. I have already shown this on this board.

An atheist can say "I don't believe in God" this statement remains a reasonable unbelief to a concept derived through deduction.

But, if one says "God, does not exist because God can't be proven" then such a person has committed the same flawed argument as you. Because God isn't empirically proven (Can't be empirically proven) doesn't mean God doesn't exist if it actually exists.

This thread of mine Atheistic burden of proof Will help you: https://www.nairaland.com/5455876/atheistic-burden-proof

The above was an aside and not meant to be a digression from the topic

Lol. Your whole argument was built on that premise. When you base your argument on a faulty premise, your syllogism falls apart.

so now that we are both even on self refutations, Have a good morning.

Actually, we don't. I did not say "God, is completely false because it can't be proven through induction"

My atheistic stance is simply an unbelief not a counter claim to God existing.

Tetehjewels:
Can you explain why the big bang is still a thing despite being rubbished by the law of conservation of mass? if yes, please do. if no then your attempts at shifting the goal post is not welcome

I actually have no business with explaining this or the multiverse theory, because neither of them is my argument.

My argument contends your basic premise of conclusively asserting a position is false because it is deductive and not inductive.

And the self refuting position of your conclusion being deductive still.

You seem to not be aware of that fundamental flaw in your argument.

Tetehjewels:
Kindly focus on the pointers from my first post and stop trying to drag me down the path of Gods existence or lack of because that is not the reason for this thread. Thanks

Lol. I didn't even mention God in that comment you just quoted.

My argument is consistent with a primary premise of your main post and is not about God.

Your premise which conclusively asserts the multiverse theory is false because it isn't inductive.

That's the premise I am contending.

I'm trying to do two things:

1. Show you how that position refutes your own conclusion of (something/someone) being outside the universe influencing it because it is as much deductive as the multiverse theory, so, if anything that isn't inductive is false as you imply then you'd have no basis to hold the position of (something/someone) because that would be a contradicting and self refuting distinct positions to hold.

2. To show you that something isn't inductive doesn't necessarily mean it is false. And to think otherwise (as implied in your argument that multi verse theory must be false because it isn't inductive) is a very flawed argument.

Tetehjewels:
You are simply trying to win an argument and not prove how the big bang theory would still be a thing despite the law of conservation of mass saying it is not.

Lol. I am not the one throwing around the words like baldadash here.

And I'm rather trying to show you how your own position on deduction is self refuting with your application of same approach.

Tetehjewels:
Just so we are clear. For something to be scientific it needs to have the ability to be proven.

Yes. That's empiricism. Induction.

My entire post was from a scientific perspective and the multiverse hypothesis is being thrown around by same scientists whose sole aim for science is roving their case factually even when they know that the multiverse hypothesis is plain fiction. This is why many other scientists do not buy into the fiction of it all since it cannot be falsified.

Here you go again. Something isn't false because it isn't inductive.

Induction is a way of scientific confirmation.

Deduction is the primary approach to a problem.

Every scientific theory or law derived today began as a deduction.

So, yes, modern scientific confirmation are based on induction. This, however, doesn't in anyway imply that deductive approaches are completely false as you arguing.

Otherwise, your deductive conclusion of (something or someone) outside the universe must be completely false.

You really do not understand how your premises are not compatible, self refuting.

That does not speak of me talking about belief but rather of me wanting to see how scientifically factual it is which it has been shown not to be thus making it balderdash.

Lol. Another, if it isn't inductive, it must be false. Which I have no problem with except that you also presented an alternative that isn't inductive either which based on this argument must be false then.

Stop trying to lay claim to what i never implied and thus change the entire argument.

I not as much as laid a claim to it rather than furnishing you with your exact quote.

Once again that something/someone who might have influenced our universe might not mean it dwells in another universe thus rendering the multiverse true. Until proven it remains an assumption.

So, you agree, that your (something/something) is as much an assumption as the (multiverse) idea and equally as likely false?

If, yes - then we no longer have any contention.

Are you a belief system kind of person or factual? If factual, then dwell on what you are proficient.

I am rather a person of logic that agree while induction is great at confirmation, deduction is important for truthful approximations.