₦airaland Forum

Aadeyinka:
but why not same punishment for the hubby too

The question is: Can she?

It is less likely that she is stronger than hee husband

geoworldedu:
I think it's not proper. How can a saviour of the world come by fornication? A bastard became a saviour. Hmm! The holy sperm of the holy spirit can perform wonders anyway.

Dude. Are you ok?

DikkoUno:
What can tell me what reality really is?

I think a simple though rather ambiguous definition should be: the totality of what is.

Are you sensing the whole of reality?

Highly unlikely

Why do you lost believe in what you're not sensing?

You can't be sure of what you are not sensing.

I'll want you to give in your contribution on this post. It's all in the sense to make things clearer.

Ok

awesomeJ:
Why not find out for yourself who he is, the authenticity of the post, and what the dots mean.

Apparently his own blindness wasn't as bad as it is with some of you.

The onus is not on him to authenticate the quote

okachie1:
Scientists are just wasting their time for nothing but to validate the existence of a creator!

Doesn't this mean they are not wasting their time for nothing?

The earth will not be left to totter...soon very soon God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth.

1. Who are those?

2. Why is bringing ruin so important to God?

3. What is the importance of this nonsense?

All this researches is because mans greed and the quest to make the front page of Forbes magazine has led to the decimation of earth's atmosphere and seem to make Earth unsafe for human life in the near future going by the current trend of things.

You are an idiot

superhumanist:
I have been vindicated. I have been claiming for some time now that johnydon22 usually is hesitant to blame religion for the problems it causes

No No that is not what Johnydon22 is doing. He is rather not blaming Religion for all the problems of the world, also not saying that religion is the biggest problem of the world.

And i think it is absurd to say religion is the biggest problem of the world and cause of most problems of the world as often implied

OkaiCorne:
And by God...are we referring to the Judeo-Christian God here?

Nope. I think Judeo-Christian God is a limited conception but God can still be anything including a deistic conceptualization

I am asking because you mentioned you were open to the possibility of acknowledging one...

Labels confine you to a fine line you must walk. Take instance: Throughout the discussion here, you kept assuming a position your opponent must take.

That is the effect of labels, people presuppose a position you must take even if it's wrong and argue against their presupposition instead of arguing against your points

OkaiCorne:
Going by your first point on the existence or otherwise of God... Are you agnostic or an atheist?

What is the importance of label on this discussion? I do not believe in God or Gods but i am otherwise open to the possibility of one or many.

I think every possibility should be explored

OkaiCorne:
And does a Spinozoist believe in the absence of God?

I also learnt Einstein had leanings towards Pantheism...

Bottom line, Einstein is not an atheist.

Spinozist is pantheism in essence. I do hope you know what Pantheism means.

And I'm sure i made several other points apart from Einstein's personal belief, why do you ignore them and focus on this one that actually is not relevant to the subject at hand?

OkaiCorne:
Oh...so are you now advocating that theists belief in the existence of God is logical?

still arguing from your own assumption?

1.My position have always been, the existence of God is logically contingent. Is not necessarily true neither can it be disproved. Arguments can be made for and against it within the logical purview.

2. Disbelief in a concept is not same as saying it is logically improbable. You seem to be confusing the two.


What is your argument again?

Lol. Butterfly shaa.

OkaiCorne:
Exactly my point. Both theists and atheists we're distinguished scientists in their field...

Despite their various contributions to Science, yet they differ in their conclusion on the existence of God.

What makes the atheists conclusion valid and that of the theists illogical if Science is your basis to prove the absence of God?

The bolded is sorely your assumption. I have not said that, neither has Hopefullandlord.

Where did you get that from?

Do you alwaya assume up the position of your opponent in an argument and then argue against this your assumption that have not even appeared in your opponents argument?

OkaiCorne:
[b]Tell us if Science has the explanation to everything in the natural realm...

How many times would you be pointed back to argumentum ad ignorantum and how it doesn't work?

It's interesting to note that even Nobel prize winners like Albert Einstein...or distinguished scientists like Isaac Newton did not arrive at the conclusion on the absence of God despite their contributions to this very same Science you uphold...


What makes their conclusion on their beliefs in God illogical and yet that of atheists valid?

1. Why do you assume anyone is arguing their belief in God is invalid? Theirs is just as valid as yours. Stop arguing against arguments you make yourself.

2. Appeal to authority? The belief of a scientist is a personal matter, has no place in the lab.

3. Einstein is a spinozoist

4. I'm yet to see your argument though? Do you have any or should we just go round and round? Cus i won't.

If your next reply doesn't bring up an argument for consideration, i will not reply again.

OkaiCorne:
Causes and effects in nature is a proof that a system can exist without a designer in place? If that's the case, can this be extrapolated further to conclude life has no origin?

Origin is a matter of cause and effect and this is observed in nature.

Bring out your argument.

I asked a question earlier...

Which was not directed at me even though i'll answer.

You keep skipping all my questions above.

Please kindly go back and answer

if Science proves that energy cannot be created or destroyed...then does God have to be created as well?

1.You'd have to first assume there is God in the first place.

hopefulLandlord:
Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Let's wait for his reply

OkaiCorne:
Can life be created out of nothing?

I do not know thus Argumentum ad ignorantum doesn't really imply or prove God.

OkaiCorne:
I asked a simple question and you haven't addressed it in anyway.

Do you have any example or logic or scientific theory that proves life, matter and the universe at large came out of nothing...

1. Why are you assuming anyone said anything came out of nothing?

2. How does this still imply or prove God?

3. Would you go a step further and assume God came out of nothing?

Is it logical to assume a system exists without a designer behind it?

Logically contingent depending on the model and system in consideration.

In sunmary: Yes.

Causes and effects as observed in nature does.

Certain assumptions need not be far fetched.

Some assumptions are just subject to post hoc

OkaiCorne:
What's the basis for your argument? That the universe was created out of nothing?

If Science can conclude that energy can neither be created nor destroyed... and you are fine with that...

Then how can we also sufficiently prove that God was created?

Even with all the collective knowledge man has, there's a lot yet unknown to sufficiently and convincingly argue away the existence of God.

You know how logic works...you need all the facts on ground before concluding on a subject matter.

If you can come up with a logical argument on how the universe or life generally came out of absolutely nothing...then you have a strong case on ground. Till then...

I'm not sure the model we derive our answers from goes the way you make it be.

You first assume up an answer

Then assume it must be true

Then insist in order to discard this idea, absolute knowledge must be achieved.

That actually is nonsense.

You don't assume up an answer that must be true before you study.

And every speculation is not assumed to be true becauss of the inadequacy of knowledge.

Your argument is quite weird

darkchild64:
Well if that is what u think then probably the only option is to witness it live,that won't be such a bad idea

Alright Goodluck with that. I'm sure we all know that is highly unlikely to happen

winner01:
I think Christians already consider the Biblical God an interventionist God but the extent isn't clearly defined.


Aren't there levels to intervention?

Well from biblical stories. The judeo-Christian God is quite the drama queen (It intervenes a lot)

I think DeSepiero is unto something with his point then.

OkaiCorne:
If you do not know how the universe came into being? Then how can you be certain God does not exist?

I do not know how exactly the universe came to be...but at the very least, I know the universe did not appear out of nothing.

Also, life cannot come out of nothing without a Creator involved.


But hey, can science and logic disprove that?

Argumentum ad ignoranum. This doesn't really imply or prove God.

It is just you replacing thr mystery your heart yearns to understand with another and even bigger mystery.

winner01:
There is no universally agreed kind of evidence that can be expected in this case. The replies of atheists to your thread prove this. Each person pointed out which experience will convince him of Gods existence. Like I explained earlier, experiences are very fluid and relative. No matter what evidence is experienced, it will remain inadequate as long as it's subjective. As for all seekers, I consider them inadequate. This should be the attitude of true learners.

This means every possible evidence that may be presented to prove God will be logically contingent?

Image123:
Surely it does. Such a society's version of good and bad, right and wrong(morality) would bring some semblance of order. But it will continue to change and 'improve' depending on the set of people that make rules.

Morality was necessary for societal security and continuation.

Thus morality is not only valuable but useful from the human and societal perspective and derives meaning from societal definition.

Ultimately, it is useless. Wow, i see. When i say ultimately, i speak in terms of eternity, life beyond life. As you don't believe that, you'd probably struggle with my pov.

This part would have to assume the eventuality of eternity and then insert the necessity of moral values into it. You may like to expatiate on this and demonstrate the importance, use and value of morality in eternity

darkchild64:
A video that proves that god exists such as an amputee gaining a new limb due to prayer should do sir

Fair enough. But given the technology today, don't you think such a video can easily be fabricated?

DeSepiero:
Perhaps man can't sufficiently convince fellow man (atheist) with evidence that God exists.
How about God convincing man?
Cc: johnydon22

This could work for an interventionist God ..lol

CoolUsername:
I think 'good' is determined by general human consensus. That explains the different moral zeitgeists that we can observe throughout history. What is seen as normal today may be seen as deeply offensive in the future or vice versa. As society continues to advance and face new moral challenges it would adapt and morality would evolve.

Morality today doesn't really have a general human consensus. it is more so, localized. Gay marriage is still morally abhorrable in Africa and not in America

winner01:
Beats me man.

More accurately, No evidence will be sufficient to convince an atheist, "except such atheist is willing to first embrace his inadequacies and limitations before looking again".

We are all subject to inadequacies and i believe evidences for a subject can also be inadequate. It falls down to whether it is the seeker of evidence or the evidence itself is inadequate which is why it is necessary to establish kind of evidence expected.

But no atheist can set their expected nature of evidence without me being able to find a loophole in such evidence. And if a theist like me can find loopholes in such evidences, then so can atheists. That's why I created this thread.

I think we should understand that presenting expected predictions or evidences consistent with a theory is different from presenting an evidence itself.

correct?

Any evidence which an atheist can present, in response to your question. I promise to refute it . I've refuted the answers they provided on your thread, I'm willing to refute any ones they will provide in the future.

Such arguments are logically contingent, i don't look forward to them

Except you feel they have the rights to provide evidences according to their own standards as you've written. That would mean I have no grounds to refute such evidence. Atheists do the exact opposite of this every time.

Evidence or expected evidences that someone think is logically necessary to either falsify or substantiate the subject? I'm confused

darkchild64:
I laugh at the arguments you folks bring,it is very easy for me an atheist to become a christian and I have presented a request which shouldn't be a problem considering that in the bible your god was waking dead people and dividing seas and promised that you shall do greater works but unfortunately it seems that the greater works you fellows are doing is arguing and arguing and arguing when a some video can shut every atheist up once and for all

What sort of video?

MrPresident1:
What is spirituality?

I was hoping someone would tell me

Image123:
Without spirituality, there is ultimately no point being moral. Morality itself being subjective.

Does morality serve any purpose in a society that is independent of spirituality?

Peacemaker5128:
I heard that he was fu.king your mother

lol ok. they are both adults still. They both consent to it, how is this anyone's business again?

Image123:
Lol, it does. Hence it is of no use or value.

What is the use of morality?

What is the value of morality?

Can you expatiate on your lack of these terms?