₦airaland Forum

Corperscafe:
Very Soon They Will Visit Dagrin

HappyPagan:
It has been examined a lot - it's the reason it has many sects. It takes the form of the examiner.


Oh, dear Josh. I agree with you @bold. But it does offer enough evidence to foster doubt, and one who doubts should be encouraged to, if the belief system is true. Darkness lies in mysteries, light reveals the hidden, doubt is the lantern in which reason burns.


I do not seek to take your moinmoin. I've had my fair share. Like Eve, all I ask is will you try the apple in the tree of knowledge, your escape from Eden?


I see no love in the unfortunate death of a Jewish carpenter. All I see is a man who claimed to be God murdered by his own people. I feel some empathy for the man - he didn't deserve a cross, but a sanitarium. He was only a victim of the times he lived in.

The Cross is not a burden a black man should carry. Jesus never carried the burden of slavery. You did. Still do.


This is crazy. God set up a planet, and made one rule - do not eat. Somehow, a fruit led to his Son's death, and millions of others through misunderstood doctrines.

yet you still trust his judgment? This guy has failed so many times, if he was real I'd be dead for calling him dumbo.


You are mad.

Tosinex:
The human mind is very powerful, and it's a very large receptor of things going on beyond the physical. One will need to train up the mind and also exercise it to receive from the beyond, I've been in a situation where I only need to think it for it to happen physically within short space of time, It doesn't come easy. If an observers mind is not as equally trained or exercised to understand what the other person is doing, such observer will only continue to doubt and negate the observations (In this case in the Christiandom we are meant to rely on faith, just believe it and it will be), A one good mind is great, but when it turns two, things will begin to happen sporadically.

Its our time to feature in this whole thing because the creator keeps expanding in creations. The universe keeps expanding because it has life, anything that doesn't have life depreciate, but there's life in the universe and it's eternal and that's why it keeps expanding.

The purpose of creation is to the glory of the creator, look around you and see how beautiful things are, look at the night skies, look at the horizon, look at the fountain of waters, look at the glowing mountains, have you seen lately how beautiful the children of men are, these are to the glory of the creator, all these apart from how man has degraded his immediate environment.. We all also have our different purposes which will be openly or secretly coded to our understanding and expected of us to walk its course.

There can't be any malfunctioning because the universe didn't come out from a big bang. For instance if you take a huge plane and blow it off in the air, the components will scatter all over and there will be activities and after a while they will all resided and there won't be any more activities.

The Universe has no end, it will keep expanding.

The creator created us in its image and likeness(ability), He is light and so we are light, our body can reflect light, I hope you remember Moses face upon the mountain, yes this is how it's meant to be, but that kind of light or let me say Glory, it's not the one we can get from the sun or from our electric bulb, it's the one we can only get from the creator itself. If I should stand just for an hour in that light, by the time I com out my whole body will just be shining light like the sun. Well, I can't begin to explain what happened from the inception, because the creator is a very intelligent being, and he understands everything better and I don't want to start entering into the scriptures now.

TayserMahiri:
What kind of malfunction?

How do you know the universe should have ended by now, and not later?

Geofavor:
Almost.

By God, you mean a supreme being, right? As in, one that supersedes over the other beings in that "supernatural plain?"

Ameeboh:
You have a really nice write-up, but you shouldn't condemn or speak ill about other people's religion or lack of it.

If you think there's no heaven, let it be for you, people who believe there is one, let it also be for them.

Live and let live.

winner01:
You will get your responses. For now, I'm in Bernabeu to ensure that Real Madrid crash out of C.L.

apesinola001:
Everyday for the thief , one day for the owner

abdelrahman:
Flog him and hand him to police

Philinho:
The shrine that cannot safe you is that one shrine?

Geofavor:
Okay. But this is your opinion.

Tell me.

Please tell me, and kindly be definitive.

Actually, I do. But I understand that views concerning these subjects vary. We continue to learn everyday; so, apart from mine, I like seeing things from others' perspective as well.

Geofavor:
I'd like another thread to be dedicated to this. So, please do. The texts in red need rigorous consideration, as I don't think 'atheistic' is the word that describes such persons.

Tosinex:
yes until our spirit leaves this earthly container. Even though some people have idea of what is on the other side but never in the entirety not even in a large percentage of it.

Truly there have been creatures before now, creatures beyond our imaginations,

truly the world has existed before now, it's just our turn and time to feature in this whole structure.

Yes there is a creator and there is a purpose,

things just don't happen out of a big bang, if so there will have been some malfunctioning in the solar system,

these things have been existing for millions of years (in our own yearly calculations). All these are works of a very intelligent creator. Even an earthly expert manufacturer knows it's products can only last for a certain period of time, and here is the universe still existing after many aeons.

We are also meant to be like that but for what happened at the start of our inception into the whole structure

Tosinex:
There's no how you will get this without you paying close attention to what you see when you close your eyes to sleep. I said this because humans are nothing more than spirit being housed in a flesh which can only survive under some certain conditions upon the face of earth....

Geofavor:
Okay, I think I get your stance now.

Your atheism is ambigous.

It won't be bad if you create a thread explaining it.

TayserMahiri:
My point was that physicists will continue to work to find out,

while some people we know will want an answer ASAP even if it is not yet there.

The human mind is a funny organ because it cant stand ambiguity. But I already gave you a go ahead man! Continue and explain to us how things were 'before' everything. I'm honest enough to admit that I dont know. I mean I know there are many propositions but just so you know, I stand with the Brane Cosmology Model of a cyclic universe. I do have a feeling, like Lemaitre that this universe has been doing this big bang discotheque for quite a long time.

Gee dude! So what was he doing?

Please use logic to prove there is God. Dont use Godel's ontological logic, get a better one.

All this trouble began just because I asked in a satirical way what God was doing before the big bang. You jumped on it and founded your own premise and now am facing the consequences. Gee. Instead of telling me where he was (time, dimensions etc), please answer the question directly and tell me what he was doing. Was he just hovering around enjoying a cool breeze? The mere suggestion that God decided to create a universe means he is imperfect. At the time he was alone he must have been missing something, which after some deep soul searching turned out to be a universe. "Aaargh, men, myself, Im missing a universe! " Im just guessing what he probably said.

To where brother?

Then answer the similar questions above and we shall see

Well what we have done here is to narrow down to the most famous God. Considering he has a support base of roughly 31 % of the global population. If you want we can increase the safety net to cover Allah who has quite similar qualities but to be fair, we can go with the former, just because he is more popular. You are putting in a lot of effort to appear neutral in regards to these gods to the point that your position has become vague. Simply choose one to work with, even if its just a private personal one and go with him, just give us his qualities. Sometimes it feels like am arguing with a wall.

He faced skepticism as any scientist does. What he did was simply look at data and come up with a suggestion, not a theory. It wasnt some out of body inspiration as the same conclusion would have been arrived at had he not come up with the idea. Frankly, I'm more impressed with Einstein and Hubble than with Lemaitre because the former two did burn serious calories figuring things than him who looked at what scientists had found and came up with a proposition. The name Big Bang is not even his. But I get you, feel free to speculate we might get an idea out of it

On point. Thats why I get mad when people who attend weekly sermons in their local church think they have the moral fiber to attack science that works its ass off to solve mysteries and problems that plague our world. F them! Only those who do though, most people are nice except a few religitards.

Only if you dont know the kind of qualities that humans attribute to God and the other gods.

I did mention this up there. At the primordial level, it would have to be ex materia.

Its wrong to say scientific thesis excludes the possibility of God but its right to say God is excluded from all scientific explanations. He has never proved to be necessary because things work perfectly fine when he is excluded. Maybe he might be necessary for scientific explanations in the future but the chances are quite slim, empirically speaking.

Geofavor:
You are not sure. Considering that you are an atheist, shouldn't you be assertive of your belief?

I mean, why didn't you just say:

[b]* Nothing of such exists

* supernatural is a nonsensical notion.

Geofavor:
. Simple.

This, however, is equivocally contrasting to your first answer.
so in other words, for example, even if spirits, magic, witchcrafts, etc., exist, they are still part of nature; they're natural?
Is that what you were trying to say?

If so, it means you believe In the existence ghosts and the likes, but you consider them natural.

If I'm right, how would you define what supernatural is then? Because it seems we pretty much have different meanings of the word.

TayserMahiri:
Im not sure I will join you in this speculation. Physics itself is already struggling with the question about before the big bang. I would recommend that argument to a religious person so that they can torture themselves.

The problem with some ppl is they cant leave an unfilled gap. If there is a disturbing question like this one you want to answer it by whatever means even with the little knowledge we have.

Religious people are even worse they go filling those ones with God and forever. I'm quite comfortable in waiting for discovery. And quit misusing the word logic. If we used logic we would come to the conclusion that there is no God.

Precisely! You're trying to drag me by the nose to your corner. I already told you the premise is yours, to me its quite pointless, even if we engage I'll probably be ignoring you. Ever seen someone who has already done some calculations wrong and is continuing to explain what he is doing despite the fact that you already know he got it wrong a few steps back? Ye, thats precisely what is happening here!

So the two positions are equally valid?
God Exists - Because I believe so
and
God doesnt exist - Because there is no evidence ?

Logical By now you should have known the word logic and God dont rhyme.

It starts from the first page of the Bible.

But I get it, please go on with your premise but refer to my first response in this post! I'll ignore because the steps are wrong. Sounds like forgery.

Thats better. Your previous one was out !

The big bang has evidence, God existing forever is a belief. Those two things can only be FORCED to merge. They dont belong together unless proven otherwise and as always, by science.

of course not! But to be honest, considering the amount of confidence that oozes from religious texts and people, we would expect it to be the other way round. This God who knows everything should be intoxicating us with wisdom from his ancient books. We wouldnt be wasting time doing science, which itself has endured a great deal of oppression from God himself and his fans in the past, when God already knows everything. Why bother looking for cures to serious diseases when God knows the cures and is only hiding it under his wings?

Lets wait for science to answer that. Thats the magic! We can only argue about it but untill research finally finds out what that was, we will just be arguing. We are limited by a lot of stuff, not the least our short lifespan. Doesnt it shock you that religion cant answer such fundamento questions? With all the backup from the sky dude who knows everything?

Lol, God is really hanging on. The thing is, God himself is an unnecessary assumption.

At least begin by speculating what if anything preceded the big bang. God is an unnecessary baggage here when you havent even exhausted a prior condition. If you examine that scientific thesis, you'll learn there is no God in the equations/formulas.

No, my analogy is on point. Unless you point out the issue with it

Butterflyleo:
Yes it would improve or get you an expected result but that is only probable when the parameters are known and not unknown.

Like throwing darts at a dartboard or throwing dice with numbers 1 to 6 on each side.

Parameters are

Dart, dartboard, dice, numbers and frequency of throws.

However in a chaotic environment what stops this chaos at the point of expected result?

What or who knows when expected result has been gotten?

Who or what has knowledge of the parameters available during this chaos?

Butterflyleo:
In a nutshell, if you repeat THE SAME EXPERIMENT over and over again, it means you are likely to get a closer or an expected result eventually. But that would only happen if you repeated the process in exactly the same way and with exactly the same tools every time.

Butterflyleo:
..

Gggg102:
Which of the laws of probability?

TayserMahiri:
You are some piece of work. All that previous post of mine and you still cant comprehend that the assumption is only sound with you and not with me?

Anyway, it seems like we will have to go with your assumption because it has to be your way. What about my assumption that there is no god?

I probably have more backup for it than you. The only reason you cannot see this is because it has to be your way.

But you went ahead and started lecturing me without understanding what premise there is. The premise you are going with is the one you want, not one that was agreed upon. The topic of the thread should tell you that! The topic is whether God exists or not, you have already concluded he does without proving anything! In fact you're playing with two assumptions;

1. He exists
2. Forever

Is this even possible? Unless you say arguments determine WHO WINS. Otherwise if the word is 'right' for both cases then there is no difference between them. Is it possible for me to be right and what am saying to be wrong? Argument and discussion is more about tone. And arguments are 'sweeter' due to the vigor while discussions are less so because of lack of heated exchanges.

Well then, lets have a discussion! But stumping an opponent sometimes is necessary to take care idiots who say nothing very loudly just for the sake of it.

Then dont mention the big bang in your case about forever/existence. They dont belong together.

The difference is that while science will work its ass off to find out what indeed, if anything, preceded the big bang, religion will be sitting pretty, waiting for anything science discovers to hang on and throw in all possible speculations including where and how to weave in God into the newest discovery.

How does ex nihilo and ex materia reconcile scientifically? Is it at the quantum level?

It is not the same. In your case, you are one step further afield. You need to make an extra assumption before getting to the same level with science. You see, science is at the big bang level on account of evidence, and speculating what was there before, if anything, is only ONE assumption. In your case, you need first to gain help from science to get to the big bang model level, then make the assumption that there was a 'before' the big bang, and follow it up with another assumption that 1. there was a god 2. who existed forever. Not the same! Somebody here needs to face Occam's Razor.

I cant believe that! In my analogy, equate shooting to creation and the assumption of A having a gun to the assumption of a god existing forever. You really have to be blind not to see the that.

Who am I discussing with? Am assuming its a human being worth discussing with?

Geofavor:
Basically, above natural; not physical; of sth or a being that the laws of science do not apply to. E.g, demons.

Gggg102:
Which of the laws of probability?

Geofavor:
Johnydon22, do you believe supernatural beings exist?

TayserMahiri:
Well, if you had read the mood and intention of my post you would know I wasnt affirming God's existence or even the assumption.

I was simply trying to show how improbable, spurious and even comical that assumption is. You shouldnt have read it as affirmation for the assumption.

One sine qua non of any intellectual argument is that you must have a position or stand to argue for (or against).

I understand what you may be saying is you dont like being confrontational, which is surprisingly the case for me. Inevitably, whether we like it or not, our argument becomes meaningless if we cannot figure what it is we are disagreeing about. There is nothing arrogant about winning or losing an argument. Its actually better that way, lest we become sheep like.

I must say you are among the very rare breed I know that actively try to weave God into the big bang model.

Am not against it but somehow it is bound to fail. You do know God is a matter of faith while the big bang is a matter of evidence.

As far as am concerned the arguments you are making are philosophical and will not bode well with scientific matters (big bang model et al.). Am not even philosophical myself! But I have a lot of respect for philosophy for helping invent intellectual thought and scientific method. However, lets be honest, philosophy, due to its consistent failure to produce physical results (as a result of not building upon previous findings) has become largely irrelevant today. Few people recognize philosophy, when science produces visible results every day, things relevant to life for everyone regardless of intellectual status. To be fair, while science keeps progressing, philosophy has been stagnant. There isnt much of relevance to human life and discovery that is acquired from philosophy. Basically wat am trying to say is that I dont think philosophical arguments like Ex nihilo and ex materia will take us anywhere. It is only going to be an argument and thats it! Nothing more. In fact, philosophy is relying too much on scientific discovery and they need to style up.

I dont think that can be reconciled. Because it starts on the wrong footing. How would it sound if I told you to reconcile that A shot B given an assumption that is yet to be agreed upon? Consider my assumption being that A had a gun, something you disagree because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that A had a gun. But am insistent on you to assume he had a gun and reconcile the shooting, and there was none of us who was present so both of us are on an equal footing as regards this matter. So what if I was wrong and A had no gun, meaning the shooting of B was from another undetermined source?

Well, for the sake of taking the discussion a little further? I dont think thats a good idea