₦airaland Forum

emyblinkx:
U think d relationship will last,when u have changed "always and forever" to "forever and always",,confusion fall on u

Shania Twain song dude..." Forever and Always" go and argued with your girl friend

shadeyinka:
I guess you don't get it yet.
What you insinuate was that man just did some random process and sometime, beneficial side effects come out of it.
But
You forget the law of probability. All in the remote parts of the world use similar techniques.

If I have seen smelting of iron ore before, it makes sense if I use series of trials and error to recreate it.

Humans achieve great results in incremental steps: I ask that you
1. show me inceamental steps in iron ore smelting technologies.
2. Show show me migrational pattern of the spread of iron technology.

It would interest you to know that several communities who never passed through the bronze age still managed to have iron technology. For your information,Bronze melts at about 600oC and iron melts at about 1200oC. These are not common temperatures.

So? aliens did it because you have no idea how it came about, guy go and sleep....

shadeyinka:
Your naivity in this matter will not allow me to continue.
It will be a waste!

Good night

Lol

vaxx:
am glad you are following. I ask for tangible evidence of your dream. you quickly remind me is a subjective experience which I agree with you. fine.

A shabby analogy that aims to quantify objective reality with subjective counterparts, If God is an objective being such examples is invalid, if God is subjective then i am pretty sure that sums up the very bone of contention.

let's apply the same logic here by reading my little story.

i went to file a report at the police station about the last night robbery in my house when I was in the kitchen. the police ask me for the identity of the robber. i said it is unknown because I was in the kitchen when it happen.


the significance of the story.

the criminal identity is unknown but actually there was robbery. likewise the presence of God is true but the identity is unknown.

This is the problem with assumptions, inter-lapping qualities, creating a contradiction of assertion - If you neither saw the thief nor heard him, you can never reveal any characteristic of the thief, you cannot say how old the thief is, you cannot say how tall he is, so now apply that same analogy to the postulation of God as you have proposed, unknown identify that somehow you know it's quality therefore killing the very same clutch of unknown.

You know God is eternal, God is uncreated, a perfect designer - removes the analogy from the actual point it aims to prove

I never say God is nothing nor do I say God is something. this is fabrication on your own side.

You said "God is not something" and that is a clear use of the English word. Not something is the long version of Nothing.

So pulling out semantics like i never said God is nothing or something still brings down your argument to absolute meaninglessness, it is just as paradoxical as saying something is everything at the same time nothing, if its everything, it is not nothing, if it's nothing, it is not everything.

God cannot be nothing at the same time something, it is paradoxical and self annihilating.
So i advice chose your words carefully bob, semantics doesn't go down so well here because you will always end up with a paradox

I never use logic to deduce the definition of god. the touchstone(IFA) says so not me. unless you have enough evidence to actually refute the premises .

You don't even have a definition of God to work with here in the first place and if there is no definition the very concept becomes meaningless.

let me make your work easier. there is no God you mean. then tell me what it is God. supposing I say you are not a white man. I should know what or who should be a white man.

www.google.com

keyword: God/god

Freiburger:
Nothing is real. We live in a holographic universe.

Isn't the hologram real?

dalaman:
African traditional religions were well thought out and refined that's why most people find the foreign religions more appealing. We were supposed to have refined them and make them more appealing but we didn't.

More appealing?

No doubt, thats why it has less and less adherents everyday.

vaxx:
j know the chemistry behind dream.. my question to you is tangible. how can you physically proof it to me . you actually dream?

Dream is a subjective experience just like imagination, objective realities require proof not subjective realities, more like asking a schizophrenic patience to prove the monster from the wall.

I never say god is nothing.

Saying God is not something is another way of saying God is nothing, so yes you did, would you like me to show you where?

this is another misinterpretation from you. God is simply beyond human logic. therefore human logic cannot explain it.

The same human logic you used to deduce God is uncreated, eternal - still shooting your own argument in the foot.

If God is outside the periscope of human logic, humans can only assume God it can never be an objectively verifiable being must be within the horizon of assumption and confident speculations.

the moment you qualify God with anything. then it flaw the definition of God . so By mere saying God is nothing. has also flaw the definition of God.

You did that yourself. Circular argument, paradoxical definition. God is nothing, god cannot be anything - try and pay attention to your own arguments

LightandDarkness:
I believe there are two divisions, if you will, of reality. There is the apparent reality and the true reality.

The apparent reality is the reality that can be perceived, observed, experienced, or logically inferred. However apparent reality is completely subjective and it varies depending on the person experiencing it. The apparent reality is the reality that one is able to experience with the tools available to them, even though any reality exists beyond this apparent reality it is impossible to know as there are no means available by which it can be known if that makes sense. For the individual the only reality that exists is the apparent reality, anything beyond that cannot reasonably be said to exist.

In contrast the true reality is pure objective reality. This reality is divorced from apparent reality and it's existence is not dependant on it's observance. Although the true reality could be the same as the apparent reality in some cases, It may not always be possible to know the true reality because as you've stated we might not have the means to observe the true reality in every case.

Therefore I believe what is real is limited to what can be observed, experienced or logically inferred. While anything beyond this might exist it does not exist to us as we are not capable of knowing of it's existence.

What is known to be real is a collectively agreed upon interpretation of that with which we observe, experience or infer. A collective apparent reality. If a schizophrenic sees monsters growing from a wall, this is their apparent reality, it may not be the true reality and it is not the collective apparent reality as majority of people will see no monsters growing from a wall. Like the apparent reality, the collective apparent reality can of course be different from the true reality.

We are real because we experience ourselves experiencing our world. We could be a simulation but even within the simulation we are real and we exist.

I agree with this really.

vaxx:
according to you an entity must have a physical presence before it is real. supposing you dream last nigh . can physically identity of your last it? how can I believed you actually dream?

None physical presence does not equate nothing, and bringing on the dream analogy we could still argue that dream is a projection from neurons just like holograms can be beamed from a solid projector.

arguing that God doesn't have a physical presence still doesn't mean same thing as God being nothing, if you repeat again that God is nothing then you have once again defeated your own argument because nothing literally means it's not there.

my reply to this once again
"
But if this owner is a skilled designer as you are implying, then this skilled designer is something and if it something (spiritual/natural) something is something, it follows that it must equally be as complex or more therefore we shout at the design argument to hold for it."

vaxx:
you are entitled to your opinion. let the nairalander on this page judge.

cool

rhektor:
What was Einstein explanation of gravitation? As if Einstein started it

Nobody said Einstein started it, he only gave out a different model to explain gravitation, Newton's theory of gravitation had been before that and is still used today in calculations.

Einsteins theory of relativity explaining gravitation can be summarized thus: Effect of mass on the fabrics of space/time

vaxx:
with you first paragraph. can you enlighten it better. am lost.

putting it in simple words: Having no knowledge about a particular thing doesn't make it to cease to be something.

first of all. I never say God is unknown. that is misinterpretation on your part.

I only tell you the identity remain unknown. God is known and one of his attribute is he can not be created. and likewise Mr nairaland scenario I gave above . he is man and one of the quality of man is . he can not gave birth.

You know God but not his identity. Keeps getting funnier.

vaxx:
please stop playing hide and seek. the newton gravity of law has been used by scientists before Albert develop the process behind it. this same process is not absolute because it can be subjected to revision tomorrow. we

still on the repetition, DJ on the beat. Maybe it sounds better to you when you repeat it

vaxx:
you don't need to sound insulting before you make your point. it is a way of hiding from reality.


I am not denying it. explanation of how phenomenon occur is what is called theory. a just observation of phenomena is called law. while fact is a proven tested observation. a fact observation is the truth that can last or exist for centuries while theories are always subjected to revision.

And the repetition continues

vaxx:
it seems you failed to reason out of what you have known.


I told you earlier the definition of God must match the touchstone of IFA. which state god identity is unknown.

Unknown identity is not same thing as not be being something..

OK let see may be you will get it now.
let use this scenario
brother nairaland was admitted to the hospital and he conceived and gave birth to a child. Can you tell me was the child a girl or a boy? I know that a male can not conceive and give birth to a child. The quality of a male is it cannot conceive and give birth to a child. it is an absurd question. Same way, the definition of God is uncreated. He does not have a beginning. So if you are still asking me the question who is the designer of the creator

Your argument births this questions not me, you argue that complexity must connote design and i simply showed you that anything able to design this must be even more complex than this, so if complexity means design then this creator must equally be designed.

If this creator even though complex is not designed then you have shown something can be complex yet undesigned thus defeating your own argument.

And again you contradict yourself; Says God is unknown at the same time knows God is eternal and uncreated, if God is unknown you cannot know anything about God, you cannot know whether he is uncreated or not, whether he is eternal. but if you know these details about God then it cannot be said that God is unknown by definition.

chose your words careful fella

Godsaves18:
A man tried to capture the eclipse which occurred in North America last monday and got this....the image of a man behind the moon

where is the pinshure naa

vaxx:
wait before you insult me. I will rather tell you that. before Albert developed law of relativity. newton gravity of law exist.

Jesus christ! gravitation is explained by Einsteins theory of relativity or newton's theory of gravitation before then. please i am not here to do this, you need to improve the quality of your arguments.

Mind the bolded

Do you just love repeating what i said in a different way?

Brother i think you need to improve a bit, doing this with you is dragging me way behind the lines i am at, not wanting to sound condescending but this is the truth.

shadeyinka:
That is not the issue for now. We may as well extend the argument to who created them or how they evolved.

exactly the point, when ever you try to assume such explanations to fill a gap left by your ignorance or inability to comprehend a most likely natural process, you will always run into more problems than you aim to answer and one of such is always the problem of infinite regression.

If you aim to save a step for the causality of their knowledge by using that phrase "Thats not the issue now"

then surely we could still save that step when faced with the causality for human knowledge by employing that same method "Thats not the issue now"

what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

so the questions still stands, how did these beings learn theirs before teaching humans

I can't go beyond what I know.

but you don't know this actually, there is a difference between knowledge and belief and so far this so called "what you know" is proving unable to withstand a little bit of scrutiny

In those days, there were Nephilims: (Hybrids), men of reknown...It is possible that the ancient technologies were sired through them from the Pyramid, the planetary systems

And the question goes back to, how did these nephilims learn these technologies?

if they can learn it on their own then man certainly can, if man cannot then how did they do it?

(how on earth did the ancient know about Mars, Venus, etc).

Simple, they observed the night sky. we live in a planet with clear skies where we are graced with overwhelming lights from outside, if we lived in such a cloud ridden planet like venus then your argument would hold but not here on earth.

we could see the stars (some of these points of lights in the night are in fact these planets), surely we could study the stars we see. why didn't these Naphilims teach about all the 64 moons of Saturn, only planets visible from earth. haaaa

that you don't know how ancient people built or knew stuff doesn't mean aliens taught them, it means you don't know

How did they cut massive stones at an age when iron shouldn't have been invented? How did the Mayan's arrive at their calender? Could their be some element of truths in the Greek gods narrations or they were just brilliant stories.

Simple answer: You don't know

How come evolution cannot account for the Paracas skulls?

genetics can in fact, there are variations in many humans, deformities and anomalies that genetics can account for when studied not appeal to broad theories like evolution

The point is, there are two many unknowns which are impossible to find without proper scientific equipment.

The point should be that something is unknown doesn't mean it is impossible, you don't know how they did it, simple and that is it.

assuming up such answers will end you in a more complex loop than when you started creating more problems for you.

I honestly do not think that the ancients should know about other planets except telescope wasn't a recent invention.

I think they should, they kept star chats and monitored the movement of these stars and the planets have a more strange movement than their starry counterparts.

All these suggests that man had some outside help. And that's my point.

No, all these suggests you don't know how man did it so you assume up an outside help. i repeat not knowing how something was done is not a clutch to bring up any absurd answer and argue it to be true.

Your point do not have valid enough arguments to support it

vaxx:
stop trying to steer the wheel of the ship in your favor. it is devilish.

in science. fact are what one can readily observe.

It can pertain to any object and real phenomenon. either it be the falling of the an orange after being thrown upwards or other simple observable occurrences. In this regard, the fact is that the orange will fall. and likewise, if this test is being done repeatedly under a controlled environment that cancels all unnecessary variables the phenomenon would have become a very obvious and undeniable fact. It is considered a fact because it will remain as true even after several centuries unless there is a more rigid and precise way of measuring a certain phenomenon. On the contrary, theories in science are likened to the explanations to what has been observed. hope give details.

You lack simple basic comprehensions and that will make me ignore you really.

facts are readily observed, correct. but the observations of this raging causes and effects provides need for explanations, the models of these explanations are what we term theories for God sake.

this is becoming tiring, going over the same nonsense over and over again.

expanding universe - fact
theory - rewind the expansion back in time, it must have started at a point, big bang.

even a 2 year old should understand the simple terms i use here

correctguy101:
Correct. The first cause problem.

Just as Edison made many mistakes before perfecting his bulb. Today it will seem easy but no one was there when he was tasking his brain to do A n B, making mistakes. We only know he made a bulb.

Iron smelting can be, or must have been a well thought out process, though mistakes must've been made till the process was perfected and the perfected knowledge passed from peoples to peoples.

But I guess Ogun taught men to make iron as the saying goes, lols

Morning John

here we go, if iron smelting can be a thought out process that undergoes series of trials and error in the course of it's evolution towards perfection, why would shadeyinka be here arguing with dalaman that humans cannot come up with such craft on their own?

if those extra-terrestrials beings can, surely humans can.

it's that simple.

vaxx:
first of all. God is not something. it is not an object or any tangible property. therefore he can not be quantify ,compared or describe. the moment you find an equation to God. then the object stop being God. the traditional faith(olodumare) God for clarification is beyond human understanding base on the IFA teaching

God is not something then God is nothing. That statement already killed your whole faith, if God is not something that makes God nothing.

therefore for you saying god is more complex in design will be flawed or less complex because it disagree with IFA touchstone. the touchstone of ifa is the main center of faith(unknown identity )but his reality is overwhelming. I can enlighten you more on it. the design topic is a good example

goes ahead and makes a claim without showing how, it disagrees with Ifa to ascribe complexity to God, how, why?

doesn't say.

This is exactly the loop a christian enters when they use the bible.

Yoruba words olo odu ma ire means Owner of the containers of creation and great blessings. anything or definition outside of this is not God.

how can a functional system exist without passing through the hands of an expert?

And this owner of the containers of creations and great blessing is not something? then it is nothing.

But if this owner is a skilled designer as you are implying, then this skilled designer is something and if it something (spiritual/natural) something is something, it follows that it must equally be as complex or more therefore we shout at the design argument to hold for it.

i wish you see how your own words climb on each other contradicting the very bits they hope to support. God is not something but it is a skilled designer, haaaaaa jesus christ of nazareth, that is absurd my good sir

vaxx:
no sir you failed to acknowledged the distinct difference between the two

a hypothesis: Is a scientific thesis/speculation wanting in observations and predictions
a theory: is a scientific thesis that explains an already observed facts but can be falsified by more observations and predictions of it's own makings

this was my own post treating the definition and distinction between theory and hypothesis, i won't take responsibility for your lack of understanding or comprehension of very basic terms i used.

vaxx:
For a quick correction . gravity is a law not theory

Jesus christ! gravitation is explained by Einsteins theory of relativity or newton's theory of gravitation before then. please i am not here to do this, you need to improve the quality of your arguments.

vaxx:
I think you need to understand it. you are actually overlapping.

Sighs

In science, an idea starts out as a hypothesis as to why or how something is hpening. Those hypotheses undergo a lot of experimental trials in various ways and data is collected. Over time, as more and more data is collected, a hypothesis can be a scientific theory. The more a hypothesis is supported by many different experiments

welcome back to reality now, and after the dance around you come back to the very point i was hammering over. Theories are substantiated by observed facts and experimentations.

A good theory is one that passes the tests of it's predictions, if it fails or an observation goes contrary to it's explanations, it is either modified or discarded and that is how scientific models improve in quality and truth approximation.

So evolution and big bang are theories, still supported by observations and experiments, yet to be disproved by any

vaxx:
No sir. it is actually in line with the topic of discussion.

.
you can learn more about logic here.

Logic Sleuth. H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Archive Photos/Getty

I won't banter over the meaning of logic with you here

there is overlaps between the two I agree. but they are clearly different in meaning. theory is just an intelligence guess while fact is an established phenomenon

nobody have ever argued a theory and fact remains the same i thought i have coherently explained this...

vaxx:
no sir. a theory is different front fact. theory is all about hypothesis.

hahahahahaha ok let me see if i can break it down, it's obvious you don't understand it.

a hypothesis: Is a scientific thesis/speculation wanting in observations and predictions
a theory: is a scientific thesis that explains an already observed facts but can be falsified by more observations and predictions of it's own makings

fact is an evidence. supposing i say the sky took its colour from water. simply because i make a research can be debunked by another researcher. supposing i say sperm produces baby . it is an evidence.

gravity is a theory;

the facts that are summarized in this theory includes. orbit, attraction of bodies, mass of objects etc.

observed facts like microwave background radiation, expanding universe, abundance of primary elements (hydrogen and helium) these are the facts and the big bang theory connects the dots, formulates a model that is consistent with these observations.

I am honestly hoping my explanation was coherent enough, i pray it is

vaxx:
my dear empirical is all about experience or relevant observation which are just mere phenomenon. logic on the other hands test the observation and evaluate it to get if it is actually practical .

i do not get where you definition of logic comes from, it seems drastically wanting.

if I still remember big bang theory is yet to become a fact.

What is this whole thing about a theory becoming a fact?

theories explain observed facts, thats it.

a theory is no more a fact than a fact is a theory..

vaxx:
the first paragraph try to summarized your believed. which is basically on evidence rather than assumption. now back to the designing question.

more like intellectual honesty aimed at avoiding to pretend to know what you or anyone really dont know

God(olodumare)by definition according to the Yoruba believe is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created the designer here will be illogical, just like asking for the bachelor marriage certificate? it will be a absurd question. then why is he a bachelor? as you rightly agree that the design need something powerful to get it done. then why doesn't the powerful designer has a designer?, Everything which has a beginning has a creator The universe has beginning therefore the universe has a creator. The universe requires a creator because it had a beginning .God(olodumare)unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a creator.


how can a functional system exist without passing through the hands of an expert?

This basically kills your argument of design, if God an even more complex entity does not require design, you have totally defeated your own premise because you have shown something can exist in a highly intricate form without needing to be design.

So remind me the problem here again?

vaxx:
human logic is ignorant you say. then what is the importance of critical thinking that begat rational taught. the only evidence of atheism.

Understand the point in his statement, Objectively verified facts owes human logic no explanation. E=MC² owes your logic no explanation to be true.

big bang failed human logic and that is why some one like me failed to acknowledge it. logically it is disputed.

anything can be logically disputed, objective empirical substantiation on the other cannot.

as he said "Objectively verified facts owes human logic no explanation"

vaxx:
have you try to understand african tradition beyond the myth. get the teaching first before you question the faith itself.

There is a precious lesson that can be learnt from every religion, cultural or philosophical class in this world, this is not peculiar to the African traditional religion

I also think science evidence of big bang theory those not correlate with human logic.

I will like to stress more on this, care to elaborate?

hope you know Charles's Darwin theory of evolution is not yet a fact. despite its large popularity.

Theory is an explanation of FACT. So i don't get how this statement sells.

vaxx:
since you believe god is an assumption rather than reality or evidence. your logic here will base on the reality of god existence if at all he exist or any proof to back it.

I don't really grab the very meaning this portrays, care to elucidate?

first lets start with the empirical
let analysis this design. spider and human being.
A tiny animal as a spider. Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily creature evolved from primordial soup? Just one of these little animal can produce up to seven different kinds of silk entrapment The spider can on demand not only manufacture its personal choice of the seven silks, but reabsorb, breakdown and remanufacture–self-recycling from the component elements. and also look at the complexity of Human being. don't you think this design must come from a creative expert or can it just be a sudden development?

A natural impression is not necessarily correct, there is never such a thing as a sudden development, if we employ the evolutionary mechanism every intricate feature is from an accumulation of simpler values over long periods of time - that is not a sudden development.

Now to further take the design argument further, it will still lead us to an infinite regress: because humans are intricate i agree, something powerful and able to design this must be equally as intricate and likely even more intricate, so how do we explain the complexity of the designer?

do we say the designer had no designer ?

then we would fail in our own argument since the complexity of humans to us connotes design why then would the complexity of this designer not connote design?

If complexity must be a pointer to design then the design equally or more complex must also have a designer who in turn must require another design and thus it goes into an infinite regress of designers.

So how do we solve that problem?

An eternal complex being? Still it's complexity kill our argument because we will still show that complex functional system can exist without being designed which kills the very idea of complexity must require design