₦airaland Forum

okeyxyz: Love is a commandment.

You don't volunteer to love your mother; you are expected(commanded) to.
You don't volunteer to love(patriotism) your country; you are expect(commanded) to.
You don't volunteer to love(Loyalty) your employer; you are expected(commanded) to.
You don't volunteer to love(provision & protection) your children; you are expected(commanded) to.

etc, etc.

It's Funny how atheists would embrace corruption and evils, like telling us "love is voluntary", Just because they can't stomach the fact that (some) religious doctrines are actually correct.

Why do you love your mother?

Why do you love your country?

If your reasons are because you are commanded to do so, then you have no reasons to love em other than being commanded.

Empty love$

okeyxyz: This is a lie. A politically correct and deceptive definition of love. Love is not voluntary. If you choose to love, then you [size=13pt]must[/size] follow up with it's requirements and demonstrations, otherwise you don't love.

Next you'd be telling us that loyalty is voluntary.

Love is qualia, therefore has no obvious physical effects.

The Beauty in love is that its voluntary, it is shared between EQUAL partners, its an admiration of the Beauty in the other person, in whatever form.

Love can not be commanded, Respect can.

^^^
I always have issues without your analogies cos they mostly don't give a good representation.

My use of Cause to describe God wasn't to suggest he is inanimate or lifeless or unnecessary. My argument is in good order.

Besides, you accepted all the foregoing premises!

Morality is group sentiment, it is best studied sociologically, and in a cultural context.

Uyi Iredia: I find that the problem with materialism is that concepts such as morality, empathy and logic are not strictly reducible to the material processes responsible for them. We know the basis of all mentations is the human brain but why should the materials in the brain evoke these mentations. There is no reason for a purposeless, amoral material to start considering purpose, yet this is what we see in the brain and in all biological systems. Going by the known fact that purpose & morals can only be defined in context of that which has intelligence I can extrapolate that morality (particularly in humans) ultimately comes from an intelligent being (God).
Materialists must realize that matter alone can't think or feel. These attributes require a specific assemblage of materials which CANNOT self-assemble the only reasonable option is to infer from human ability to create intelligent machines that intelligence is required to create intelligence and this necessitates a God. After all is said and done I think the basis of morality is intelligence.

Note that the materialist stands in awe of the dynamism of matter. Is an existentialist a materialist too??

Mr anony: I see you missed the point. Let me try again

Consider this example of a bad argument:

1. Greek is a language,
2. Socrates is Greek
3.Therefore Socrates is a language.

Note that while 1 is true and 2 is true, 3 is not true because 1 and 2 are not true in the same sense. The above is the classic fallacy of equivocation.

======================================================================================================================
Now onto your argument.

I thought my initial mirror argument would make the error in yours evident to you but since you still missed it, I'll tackle your argument one last time. point by point


True. However, I hope you do realize that what is meant by this is that the entirety of nature is contingent on the existence of God. To put it simply No God, No Nature


To be more precise: God is the supernatural being(transcendent to nature) that caused nature(the natural world) itself to begin to exist.


True.


True. In the sense that a supernatural being can cause something as well as a natural being can equally cause something.


True. Again In the sense that a supernatural being can cause something as well as a natural being can equally cause something.


Here lies your "Socrates is a language" moment. Notice that you have equivocated "being" to "cause" by slyly taking advantage of an ambiguity in the English language.

In case what I said still isn't clear, consider yet another example:

1. Seun is the Cause of Nairaland
2. Causes are not human beings
3. Therefore Seun is not a Human being.

I hope I have been clear enough for you.



Once again, have a great day.

Mr Anony

From 1 to 6 to the exclusion of 3, we are in order.

3. God is also a supernatural being and a Cause sometimes referred to as the first cause, cos the world is an effect of him.

So no ambiguity in my belief.

kambo: in many ways. Ur argument is distortive of d facts upon whch christianity rests.

This is d post i responded to:



IF God's primary function is a cause. Then he of necessity at some point in His existence in accordance with his primary bhvr (function) must CAUSE anoda entity to come into being. E.g
Create d universe.
This is nowhere supported in d Bible. So it makes no sense,biblically.
This is an assumption u came up wt and use as a supplied premise frm christianity, to build ur argument with.
GOD created d wrld not as a functional consequence, but as a volitional consequence. Meang, he dd it arbitrarily. He very could hav chosen not to and still b God.
A heart, cannot b functiong(alive) and not pump blood.
A hand cannot b functiong(alive) and not grasp,punch,feel.
But God can b functiong (alive) and not create anythg!


The second bolded was anoda messy argument soup.
Lets ignore the semantics of d wrng wrd u used like Reason "sufficient reason".
U meant sufficient facts/evidence.
Reason is out of d question.
But christianity blves tht d supernatural (spirit wrld) created d physcl wrld with God being the agent in d spiritual wrld causg the physcal one to materialise.

D wrd supersede alters ths premise.
If we ignore dat wrd we go back to the age old debate , evolution vs Creation.

Either way, i was drawg attntion to the errors in ur response not ur initial posting. I told u earlier tht critiquing tht post wud b too exactg ... See ths simple crap u wrte takg up so much response time.
Organise properly ur tots b4 u shoot.

Most of what you are saying are distractions. Your post isn't so coherent, I can hardly sieve out a position. Who said anything about Christian God??

^^^

@kambo, we appreciate your difference btw attribute and function, however how does it affect my argument?

Ain't God arguments built around "No God no universe"?

EDITED

At least we all on this forum accept that most scientific theories don't go down well with the Bible.

Remember the Bible mentions Elijah being taken into heaven via a chariot and the Tower of Babel was almost reaching Heaven.

kambo: 1. lets b a lil exact here. "primary FUNCTION as a cause" - wrong.
Function means bhvr e.g the primary function of ur hart is to pump blood . But d attributes of a hart aint pumping blood.
The attributes of a hart equips it to perform its "primary function"


2."there isnt sufficien reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.."

bogus.
Wat dyu mean by supersede?
A thng supersedg anoda thng only if dat other thng exsts, then
d superseding thng bcomes a replacement.
If a supernatural cause supersedes a natural cause then theyl b only one cause standg-d supernatural cause- and evry1 wud b in d supernatural realm.

Instead of typing so much to point out y ur arg is a misfit. Brevity requires mor economy. I.e just call ur prose crap or nonsense etc..

1. What are you saying? Where are you standing?

2. Since there isn't one Cause, but two; where does that place God as a supposed necessary being?

Mr anony: Wow, I find it hard to believe that you of all people blundered this badly

Let me see if I can break it down for you:

1. The laws of logic are necessary laws

2. If the laws of logic exist, they necessarily exist

3. The laws of logic are non-physical

4. Laws can be physical

5. A law is either physical or non-physical

6. A law is not necessarily physical

7. Therefore the laws of logic are not necessary and hence cannot exist

See I've just disproved the laws of logic. Now spot the error in my argument (as you do I'm sure you'll spot the error in yours as well)



Have a Happy Sunday.

Mr Anony

But laws are all non physical (information in the least). Also I linked God to his primary function as a Cause which ought to make his existence totally necessary.

However there isn't sufficient reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.

EDITED

200 000yrs doesn't in the least represent urgency or an emergency. Christianity doesn't see the need in the immediate.

What becomes of the Truth with the introduction of Faith?!

Lovethywilbedon: By the way WHO DECIDES WHAT IS NECESSARY?

Before we get to that, is the argument valid on its own premises and conclusions??

Thank you oh thehomer, bare insults and zero contributions.

@logicboy

I merely followed its trend.

kwangi: There's nothing to explain in your post.
It lacks coherence and common sense.

What don't you agree with??

^^^

Your objection number 2 was what I was exactly trying to correct you about!

I wasn't saying an existing being is not existing for being contingent, rather God's essential quality is existing necessarily, thus placing him beyond validation by experience or empiricism. God wldnt not exist, if he doesn't do so necessarily.

They ask the most important question: meaning. God creating Big Ban.g, splitting heaven from earth, being the preexisting cause of the multiverse, is the israelite journey to finding Meaning of Life.

Mr anony: Pardon me but is the bolded your point?

My point is simply you disregarded your assumption that good/bad is objective,

Deep Sight: Are you drunk or something?

I'm sure I'm not.

kambo: organize your thoughts properly before posting.. wat nonsense garbled garbage is this.
Your a disgrace to your atheist folks..
bullet lists of nonsense.
nonsense = not making/lacking sufficient sense to b understandable..

Just point out what's wrong with it.

Lovethywilbedon: What a "TRUNCATED SENCELESS LOGIC". Let me give you a similar analogy of what you posted, and I will see what you can make out of it.
1. ALCOHOL is a necessary liquid.
2. If ALCOHOL exist, it necessarily exist.
3. ALCOHOL is an artificial liquid.
4. Liquids can be natural.
5. A Liquid can be artificial or natural.
6. A Liquid is not necessarity artificial.
7. Therefore ALCOHOL is not necessary and hence can not exist.
The loophole in you logic is in the CONCLUTION that if something is not necessary, hence, it can not exist. If this is true, then why is it that "byproducts of metabolism"(which are no more necessary) still exist?

No my conclusion was: if a necessarily existing being/thing is not necessary, then it doesn't exist NOT If something is not necessary, it doesn't exist.

1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Ngenge: What a nonsense! Imo again? Hei. D bible said 'do not be filled with wine[hemp,alcohol,gin, cigarette,cocaine etc],but be filled with d Holy Spirit.' I blame d members of dat church 4 luking for a cheap gospel. Both d deceiver and d deceived are guilty. Beware of fake prophets! Na last days be dis o. 2 Timothy 3:1-end

Wine means everything you don't like?!

shdemidemi: There is no point defending God for anything. If you as an unbeliever want to know anything about condemnation, there you have it. The same way He killed every first born of Egypt--
Exodus 12:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

In that similar way every unbeliever that refuses God now would be condemned but admonition is that it won't be your flesh or your body alone, Your soul shall be condemned.

All God is asking is for you to believe and you shall be saved, if you don't you shall see him as the Spirit of death. You have all the volition to make a choice.

Unfortunately, you didn't talk about how Good God was, rather you spent/wasted valuable time discussing about the necessity of worshipping God. The necessity of worshipping God doesn't equate to God's Goodness.

You should stick to the topic more often.

Mr anony: Read premise 3. I have not said that death is either good nor bad. Please tell me again how premise 2 doesn't stand

I will repeat myself again.

Premise 2 states that "For a thing to be either good or bad, a subject person MUST exist to experience it"

If the subject person does not exist, then there wouldn't be good or bad, that's why I said premise 2 is predicated upon subjectivity. No person's view, no bad or good.

Your conclusion hammers home my point: "Conclusion: Therefore if to die means to cease to exist, there is nothing wrong with the state death since the dead experience nothing. Furthermore following from this, killing a person is not intrinsically wrong."

Mr anony, it is blatantly clear and obvious. There is no misunderstanding here. You have violated your own presupposition.

I remember one of your posts, where you you used premise 2 to support 3. I will keep searching for it.

Mr anony: Good, then we are in agreement. You need your subjective tools (your eyes) to experience the green grass however it is not your eyes that makes the grass green.

But if I close my eyes, it is still green; same with Death, a value judgement on death is not on predicated on a subjective experience hence your premise 2, 3, and conclusion don't stand!

Premise 2: For a thing to be either good or bad, a subject person MUST exist to experience it
Premise 3: There is no reason to believe that existence is better non-existence
Conclusion: Therefore if to die means to cease to exist, there is nothing wrong with the state death since the dead experience nothing. Furthermore following from this, killing a person is not intrinsically wrong.

ninja4life: U people like trouble dont u know dat God is omnipotent and omniscience so he only let u mere mortal know wat he wish cos u cant interprete d bible with ur fish brain u beta ask for d holy ghost so dat he cant teach u d things in d bible and u can ask him ur question.u must also know dat u cant interprete d bible literarily okay goodluck.
ROFLMAO

The holy spirit will reveal the Gospel in the light of reason not by special pleading.

Mr anony: The question we are contesting is "Is God Good?" Thehomer raised this question. I will be better placed answer him if he can explain to us what he means by good.

True, however we intuitively regard the bold in the OP as shocking and bad, inspite of the lack of definition. As I'm typing this, I'm in shock and I'm convinced destruction of infants is alarming.

So the ball is in your court to swiftly break apart thehomer's post and expose the flaws and re-convince us observers otherwise.

Although it is thehomer's duty to define good, but we the observers already have gone further. It is preferable you ground your answers with your own definitions which will sufficiently enlighten us.

Mr anony: does green grass stop being green whenever you close your eyes?

No it doesn't.

Mr anony: Beautiful.

The verses you quoted were from 1Samuel 15:3. I'll come back to answer them but before we continue, I'd like to ask you

1. Does absolute truth exist? i.e. Is there such a thing as an absolute and objective truth about things not subject to personal bias and if yes is it possible for us to know that some things are absolutely true?

2. Do you subscribe to moral realism? i.e. do you subscribe to the school of thought that one can be morally right or wrong objectively in much the same way one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically and logically?

3. If you believe that there is objective good, can you define it for us?

After you have defined what is good, then we can proceed to judging the goodness of God's actions in 1Samuel 15.

I'm as always very happy to carry this conversation to it's logical conclusion.

By stating God is Good, all the above questions except 3 is answered in the positive. I'm sure thehomer is aware of that assumption. However I believe you ought to define Good, cos its well known to be your declaration/statement. So you have a better opportunity of educating us all.

Pastor Olu T: So when something obviously is unnatural is just our psyche?

You just to want to agree, there is more to what you see and know and until you face the truth about the supernatural you will never see the clearer picture

Pastor Olu T, your experience as I said earlier is unique! Nobody has the same experience with you. You seem to sincerely believe yours to be true, however we have very little understanding of our psyche. We cannt intelligibly discuss the Supernatural and we cannt accept a conflict btw supernatural and the natural.

The reason why humans have different qualia is still unknown!