₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: RegisterLoginWith GoogleTrendingRecentNew

Stats: 3,330,936 members, 8,447,804 topics. Date: Sunday, 19 July 2026 at 03:13 AM

Toggle theme

JujuSugar's Posts

Nairaland ForumJujuSugar's ProfileJujuSugar's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (of 9 pages)

Christianity EtcRe: Dear Atheists by JujuSugar(f):
NnennaG6:
If there is reason, it has a transcendent, unitary, and coherent basis irreducible to particles bumping one onto another.
Why? What is it about reduction to mechanistic particle movements that would make it inadequate as a basis? Why would reason need a transcendent unitary basis?

There is reason since we transcend and communicate in unity that which is true and that which is false and able to confirm or falsify the results of reason and truth.
This premise is simply false. Truth is undefinable. Whatever consistent formula/test for identifying true propositions you can come up with, you can always use Cantor's diagonalization to generate a true proposition that the formula/test will fail to identify as such. The only reason why truth seems transcendent and universal is because when two people meet in practice, their intuitive vague notion of truth is similar enough to communicate effectively. That does not actually require truth to be truly transcendent.

Here's how I avoid the issue:

Step 1. Replace classical definition of knowledge (true justified belief) with something that does not hang on ill-defined and/or anthropocentric concepts. For example, I use definition that is based on fields of game theory and artificial intelligence: Knowledge is information that gives an agent power (the ability to willingly choose) over the outcome of a nontrivial scenario.

It dodges the truth bullet, because information does not have inherent truth value. It doesn't arbitrarily limit knowledge and reason to human-like minds that hold beliefs. It defines knowledge based on its observable effects, instead of inherent qualities. And it captures the only aspect of knowledge that ultimately matters - power.

Step 2. Redefine reason. Reason is the ability/process of deriving knowledge from information. In other words, before you perform reasoning on given information, you have less power than after you perform the reasoning. It is validated by whether the resulting information actually constitutes knowledge. There is no one singular reason. Rather you can compare the "reasonability" of processes, based on the efficacy of results they produce. That does not require there to be some ultimate maximal reason (though it is not inconsistent with that notion). Under this model, truth is just a concept. A tool for manipulating information into knowledge. The ultimate arbiter of truth is the reality itself, or at least the part of it you occupy. You may notice, this model does not make any proclamations/assumptions about ontological or metaphysical nature of reality. It just defines concepts that you may (or may not) identify in reality.

I know this is a big bone to chew on. It approaches reason from a completely different direction than classical philosophy does. But then again... classical philosophy has been circlejerking on a treadmill for at least the last 200 years. Meanwhile other branches of philosophy (natural science, mathematics, computer science, humanities) are progressing in leaps and bounds.
Christianity EtcRe: Dear Atheists by JujuSugar(f):
This is an issue that existence of god doesn't fix. Even if we assume that there is some transcendent basis for reason, we have no good reason to believe that we have any sort of reliable access to it. People behave irrationally most of the time. That's something really hard to explain away, if we have some god-given capacity for reason.

Consider this simple syllogism:
P1: If god exists, reason is justified.
P2: God exists.
C: Therefore reason is justified.
It might seem like a valid syllogism, but it's actually not. In order to infer C from P1 and P2, you need to apply reason (specifically modus monens). Which you can't do (justifiably) unless you already have prior justification for reason. If you do have it, that defeats the purpose of the argument. The problem is not specific to god. You can substitute anything for "god" in that argument and you'll end up with the exact same issue. Even if one of those things is in fact what makes reason work, there's no rational basis to come to that conclusion. You can never really justify reason itself. Not by invoking god, spirits, epiphenomena or anything else. The least "damaging" position is to just presuppose it.
Science/TechnologyRe: The Kalam Cosmological Argument by JujuSugar(op):
Near1:
The Kalam’s problem is that you cannot prove that an infinite regress of events is impossible, (accidentally ordered series of causes). Aquinas provides a better argument in which an infinite regress of entities is impossible. It’s called an essentially ordered series of causes, in which you cannot have one cause existing without the simultaneous existence of its own cause. It has to do with movement (not just strictly locomotion but rather the change of states of being).

With this infinite regress, nothing at all would be changing because there’s actually nothing to provide any change of state, it’ll just never exist. So when we observe one thing moving or changing, we know that there is at least one end point when looked at regressively, simultaneously existing while said observed thing is changing. That is what theists call God, and that type of infinite regress is impossible
As you said, a per se chain refers to the concurrent/simultaneous actualization of change. This kind of finitude is perfectly consistent with a past-eternal universe.

I'm inclined to agree that a per se chain can't be infinite and must, therefore, end somewhere. However, I disagree that this is what "theists call God." It could be the universe itself. How so? First, if existential inertia (not to be confused with Newton's inertia) is true of the actual world, then the argument has no force whatsoever (See Existential inertia and the Aristotelian proof). So, Thomists have to refute this possibility. Second, there are alternative accounts of per se chains (i.e., alternative to Aquinas') in which Aquinas' argument does not work:

“The account runs as follows: A per se, sustaining cause C is required for substance S’s being in condition or outcome O only if (i) there is some causal or explanatory factor or force F—intrinsic or extrinsic to S —acting on S to bring S toward some condition or outcome ~ O; (ii) F is a net factor or force in the absence of C’s causal operation; and (iii) S (or some state of affairs involving S) is in condition or outcome O distinct from ~ O. ... The account... provides a foundation for a new undercutting defeater of the Aristotelian proof." (Stage One of the Aristotelian Proof: A Critical Appraisal, p.6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this reason and many others, I reject Aquinas' first way.
Science/TechnologyThe Kalam Cosmological Argument by JujuSugar(op):
For those who do not know, the William Lane Craig standard Kalam cosmological argument runs as follows:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
P3. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
C2. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.




Objections:

1> There is no good scientific reason for concluding our Lorentzian four-dimensional spatio-temporal manifold had an absolute beginning. Of course, we can debate Big Bang cosmology, singularity theorems (like the BGV and Hawking-Penrose theorems) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have read extensively about these subjects and asked about them to several professional cosmologists (including Vilenkin, Andrei Linde and many others).

2> The philosophical arguments against an infinite regress of past events (viz., the traversal of an infinite timeline) as well as arguments against an actual infinite are fallacious and consequently unsound. Many philosophers agree on this point (e.g., Oppy, Arnold, Moriston and many others). We can debate that as well.

3> Even if it had a beginning, there is no reason to conclude it had a cause, as causality seems to be a property of the physical manifold -- if there is no manifold, there is no causality. So, Craig has the burden to demonstrate causality is transcendental (and metaphysically necessary) rather than a description of how the manifold works (and thus dependent on the manifold).

4> Even if causality holds without our Lorentzian manifold, it is a non-sequitur to say the cause must be immaterial, non-spatial and personal. This apologetical claim assumes all of physical reality began, and there is no proof this is true!

5> Even if it is shown that the cause is immaterial, it doesn't follow it must be a personal mind. Beyond the fact that many philosophers (e.g., Alexander Pruss) argue abstract objects are causally efficacious, there are other equally speculative proposals that postulate immaterial substances. Just one example: Life is defined by Qi even though it is impossible to grasp, measure, quantify, see or isolate. Immaterial yet essential, the material world is formed by it. An invisible force known only by its effects, Qi is recognized indirectly by what it fosters, generates and protects... Qi is an invisible substance, as well as an immaterial force that manifests as movement and activity. (Between Heaven and Earth, pp. 30, 34, by Beinfield and Korngold)

6> Even if I grant an uncaused sentient being, that wouldn't demonstrate it is still around today. Couldn't it have simply started everything and then extinguished itself? As philosopher Paul Edwards explained: Nor does the [Kalam] argument establish the present existence of the first cause. It does not prove this, since experience clearly shows that an effect may exist long after its cause has been destroyed. Critiques of God (p.46)
CelebritiesRe: Bbnaija Star Nengi Spoted Displaying Her Backside While Walking Half Naked In SA by JujuSugar(f): 12:26pm On Nov 09, 2021
Focus on yourselves and mind your business! If the girl decides to strip naked act porn in public, it's still her choice and doesn't interfere in your personal business. Live and let live
Christianity EtcRe: There’s No Evidence That Your God Exist by JujuSugar(f):
sonmvayina:
Have you ever really considered the fact that you can't perceive God because you are inside him.....
If what you said above is true, then how did you come to know about his existence?
Christianity EtcRe: The ID2020 Alliance And The Mark Of The Beast by JujuSugar(f): 5:02pm On Mar 10, 2020
Religion on its own is a beast. It Marks people (religious segregation), threatens those who have not accepted it (the hell concept), often times ostracizes people who refuse it, and much more. The person begging you to accept religion is often charismatic and loved by the community, and you are tricked and decieved to give money you don't have and dedicate your only existence to its power over you.

Don't know about you but this makes sense to me
Christianity EtcRe: If We Are God's Children, Why Would He Send Us To Hell Forever For Sinning? ? by JujuSugar(f):
Stephani3e:
since we we are God's children why would he send us to hell forever for sinning?
To punish us for the evils he already knew we'd commit *chuckle*

It doesn't make any sense to me
It's supposed to. According to christians

Can't he just forgive us since he is a merciful God?
Nope. Ain't happening sis. Sorry.

Sometimes some when I use logical reasoning, some parts of the Bible doesn't make sense to me,
Color me surprised
TV/MoviesRe: What Movie Are You Watching Now? by JujuSugar(f):
Vic2Ree:
LoL! Please explain

CosmicPhoenix
hulk616
First of all, Superman's speed is roughly on par with Thanos. Thanos is certainly more durable but Superman isn't that far behind and might have a signifigant speed advantage. If this was ignoring special abilities and tech I could actually argue Superman. But Thanos isn't primarily a stat-based fighter anyway. He's way more versatile then Superman and he has really hax abilities that Superman doesn't have any way to counter (or at least not all of them). So while Superman physically might have parity, it's Thanos hax that makes him so dangerous anyway.
TV/MoviesRe: What Movie Are You Watching Now? by JujuSugar(f):
Vic2Ree:
Which version of Thanos please?
You read comics, right? The standard versions of Superman and Thanos. Not the Thanos enhanced with the infinity gauntlet.
TV/MoviesRe: What Movie Are You Watching Now? by JujuSugar(f):
J2381:
superman have never been bright. There's a reason why Joker call him Stupidman, you know.
Yeah...

You do realize that Superman would actually own Thanos, right?
Christianity EtcRe: Ok. Fine. So Your God Exists! But Wait... by JujuSugar(f):
St1ckman:
Wonderful! So you've disproved every multiple choice test ever! Lol! grin


Speculation. I need evidence of this. My calculations are based on an equal probability of each description of deity to be correct because there is no evidence of any being correct or incorrect.
Somethings probability is based on the likelihood of it happening. Nothing else. Whether it is technically a choice or a default position, or a lack of making a choice etc. doesn't change that.
Christianity EtcRe: Ok. Fine. So Your God Exists! But Wait... by JujuSugar(f):
St1ckman:
So...

Just taking it mathematically you get 1/x probability of being correct and (x-1)/x chance of being wrong. Where x is the number of religions including strong atheism.

Now lets look at the probability of agnosticism and weak atheist. Because they do not make a choice their probability of being correct is 0/x or 0%.

This makes weak atheism and agnosticism always wrong. This makes any religion including strong atheism an infinitely better choice.
Oga that's not how mathematics works. The probability of something being correct is not dependent on it being a choice we can make in general. Not to mention that not all religions have equal chance of being correct.
RomanceRe: Can You Kiss Your Bae During Early Morning Sex Even When They Have Not Brushed?? by JujuSugar(f):
ITearHerTotoWyd:
You sound like you were invited

Pukes angry
You sound like you guessed wrong cheesy
RomanceRe: Can You Kiss Your Bae During Early Morning Sex Even When They Have Not Brushed?? by JujuSugar(f):
ITearHerTotoWyd:
Unfortunately you can't get that opportunity

You will have to queue. angry
Thanks but don't worry. I was never interested!
RomanceRe: Can You Kiss Your Bae During Early Morning Sex Even When They Have Not Brushed?? by JujuSugar(f):
ITearHerTotoWyd:
Well if you're opportuned to spend time with me then you would know if yours won't tear or go half torn

Not forgetting you A-hole

Pukes angry
Yeah, right
RomanceRe: Can You Kiss Your Bae During Early Morning Sex Even When They Have Not Brushed?? by JujuSugar(f):
ITearHerTotoWyd:
Can't even suck your pusssy even if I'm paid a million dollar. Talk more of ass

I have no idea the contents in it embarassed

Pukes angry
Your moniker is ITearHerTotoWyd but u dey fear toto. Lol!
PoliticsRe: Rochas Okorocha’s Statue Suddenly Turns White As He Leaves Office Amidst Jeers by JujuSugar(f):
massmediang:
Residents of Ogboko and its environs were shocked one morning to discover that a statue of Governor of Imo State, Rochas Okorocha, standing at the roundabout close to his village had suddenly turned white, looking like something from a strange horror movie.
Governor Okorocha is alleged to be leaving office amidst jeers and complaints of non-performance from his kinsmen and many residents of Imo state, fueling rumours that some persons may have cursed the out-going governor, as a result of which the statue of him riding a horse suddenly turned white.
The statue at Ogboko round about was initially a gray statue of Okorocha riding a gray horse, but now it is has turned into a frightening white Okorocha riding a strange white horse.

What do you think? Is this normal or is it a sign of strange things to follow the governor as he leaves office amidst complaints of gross non-performance by his kinsmen and Imo citizens? Or is it just a coincidence?
See more:
https://wakkinews.com/2019/05/25/rochas-okorochas-statue-suddenly-turns-white-as-he-leaves-office-amidst-jeers/
Consider oxidation and air pollution. Not everything has to be supernatural
RomanceRe: Can You Kiss Your Bae During Early Morning Sex Even When They Have Not Brushed?? by JujuSugar(f):
ITearHerTotoWyd:
Have you been sucked in the buttthole beforehuh

Pukes angry
Why? Do you want to suck it?
RomanceRe: Can You Kiss Your Bae During Early Morning Sex Even When They Have Not Brushed?? by JujuSugar(f):
ITearHerTotoWyd:
Pukes angry
This one is puking grin. When you find out where else people willingly put their mouths, it's gonna blow your mind.
EducationRe: SS2 Boy Brought A Gun, Tear Gas And Dynamite To School For Fight Ss3 Student by JujuSugar(f): 10:06pm On May 25, 2019
Is this how students fight now?...
Christianity EtcRe: My Favorite Line From The Bible by JujuSugar(f): 12:26pm On May 05, 2019
lepasharon:
And here is my favourite line:

Ezekiel 23:20-

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses
cheesy cheesy cheesy
Christianity EtcRe: Free Will: A Re-examination by JujuSugar(f): 12:15pm On May 05, 2019
NnennaG6:
I'm talking of the conscious you. You are the same consciousness when you were born and you will be the same consciousness until you die. That's why your experience on earth is continuous and not broken by you being a different consciousness at different moments.

That's another story about the soul. I am just answering the question about free will.
Nne, that is an interesting assertion,.....
but are you sure that it has any basis in fact?......
Or is it simply a necessary supposition for the free will argument to remain coherent?......
Christianity EtcRe: Free Will: A Re-examination by JujuSugar(f):
NnennaG6:
Literally YOU: the person itself and the one I am speaking to.

Like I said, you are choosing already existing and known futures and that's why God knows while allowing free will because you get to choose which of those futures you get to experience.
Nne, when you say ME, you have to be more specific o!.....
I am an aggregate subject to change, not a self-existent entity......

What I was when I first posted......
is different from what I am now,.....
and will be very different ten years in the future......

My dear, you have assumed some sort of intrinsic essence for the self that has yet to be demonstrated!
Christianity EtcRe: Free Will: A Re-examination by JujuSugar(f): 8:53pm On May 04, 2019
NnennaG6:
This is actually a misunderstanding of timelines. Multiple timelines exists in the same universe we exist now. Think of a universe as a visual novel title while timelines are choices within that title. God knows all possible choices and how it will unfold. Whichever choice you choose and get to experience is up to you. Either way, God knows what happens no matter the choice you make. Basically, you are just experiencing what is already existent in the future and your choice determines which future you see.
Pls ma, who is the YOU who does the choosing?
RomanceRe: Ladies... Why? by JujuSugar(f): 9:11pm On Apr 25, 2019
gloria34:
says one with so much low self esteem he couldn't post his pix. Least i Forget, you are same with the baby nuelsam, Lol, using double account. Your self esteem must be below the soil. Now for your information baby nuelsam, i can feed your whole family and still foot your psyciatric Bill cause its obvious you family is having problems with that. This response is my parting gift to you, hope you go back to your mother's breast milk cause i can sense your brain didnt develop properly due to lack of it. Now you can get the Fvck out of my mention
gloria34:
Least i Forget, you are same with the baby nuelsam, Lol, using double account.
huh
RomanceRe: Ladies... Why? by JujuSugar(f): 9:02pm On Apr 25, 2019
Nawa, see fight grin grin grin.....

RomanceRe: Ladies... Why? by JujuSugar(f): 4:57pm On Apr 25, 2019
nuelsam:
very well then... This is social media... This is nairaland....... This is the Romance section where u get to ask questions bothering on relationships ... I asked cos this ain't the first time im seeing it happen,im just curious to know why.
Lol. Didn't u already answer your own question in the OP? What more do u want to know?

People can be very petty. Guys and babes alike. There's nothing to see here....
RomanceRe: What Could Be The Cause Of An Increasingly Cheap Girls In Nig? by JujuSugar(f): 4:45pm On Apr 25, 2019
Silentscreamer:
Op u have ur entire life to be stupid, why not take today off??
What did he say now that makes him stupid? I'm curious
RomanceRe: Hmmmm.... Are These Big Boobs Real?! by JujuSugar(f): 4:40pm On Apr 25, 2019
Dumbass thread...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (of 9 pages)