₦airaland Forum

kambo: one fact all must face tht is incontestible is THERE A UNIVERSE . WE ARE ON IT. Atheist thnk it propesterous tht an Intelligent Being designed it.
But no atheist witnessg a far less complex man made system (all human systems are simple compared to the most advanced systems in nature)
doubts tht such system came about by CHANCE.
A car, a computer, a matress, a bottle, look around u , u see human artifacts, and some systems. U may never see d designer of ur phone/laptop/computer but u never question how they were made.
But, using d same logic on a system much more complex more intricate so advanced tht scientsts worldwide are stretched in pondering it , displayg amazing precision and order , seems SO STUPID ITS UNTHINKABLE! AND atheists work to remove such thnkg from our social system.

The bible sums it up with a sentence. "the fool says in his heart there is no God".

Yet you believe this grand design was created from Nothing by God?? Isn't that impossible and contradictory?

4cassava sticks: Atheism is the humongously stupid idea that whole universes can magically pop out of nowhere.

I have never seen anything that beats that kind of foolishness.

Nooo!! That's entirely false! In fact most atheists can't accept the belief that a God created the Universe out of nothing. Stop peddling lies

^^

How you harmonize it?

If our forefathers can reach Heaven or condemned to Hell by the evil they have done, Christianity falls apart. Jesus said "I'm the only way to the Kingdom" and likewise stressed on the futility of works. That human righteousness is unworthy of God.

Jesus ushers in Grace, condemns the works of men (imperfect righteousness) and claims as redemption himself. If our forefathers can make it to Heaven without Jesus, then Jesus is lying. Christianity is false.

@syncan so you are holding me responsible for another person's comment?!

Syncan: In your heart lies the truth. When I find out that I'm wrong, I retrace my steps in a civil manner. I do not switch over like I've always meant the opposite, or make it look like am neither here nor there, I guess we are not the same. "Probably", another one sitting on the fence, why am i finding this as a common denominator among those who claim atheism?

I just wanted to make it clear to you that criticism doesn't always mean disrespect to a religion. That was my comment simpliciter. You were the one who tot I confused condemnation with criticism, apparently I didn't. So it is either you agree or disagree with my comment.

*edited*

^^
Then probably I'm expantiating on your post

tobechi20: he is not well placed to make such remark either

Two wrongs don't make a right obviously.

Syncan: " I do not believe..." What difference does this phrase make? Who gives a hoot what you believe or not? What makes you so superior that what you believe or don't believe should count? You better come down from that high horse and learn to respect another's believe. Learn to air contrary view with respect,except you still live in the illusion of cerebral monopoly.

Respect for the opinions of others includes criticism.

[quote author=*Kails*]sir, what they call "magic" pertains to tricks and tricks are skills that anyone can acquire.

Supernatural is the spirit, visions, intuition; etc.[/quote]Spirits, visions unhealthy Superstition.

3cassava sticks: So god gives life to a person, god sustains life in the person all by his own independent decision. Suddenly when god wants to stop sustaining the life, he can't why?

I am still waiting for your logic but all I hear are your emotional sentiments.

From my understanding of your post, you are dangerously promoting an unethical use of Power. Power being Control, de facto authority, will to do and undo. The fact that God has the power to destroy us, does not constitute a moral right to do so.

For example abortion. A mother IS the facility in which a child grows, likewise the mother has the on and off switches. It is within her power and beyond the child's power to abort the child. Yet, despite the child being helpless, it has a moral privilege to live.

God can destroy us, it doesn't mean he is morally free to do so.

tobechi74: matyrs die for something .aaatheist live for nothing

You are not well placed to make such a judgement on atheists.

Pastor Olu T: As to the definition, I will simply put as what is not natural and not just what we are yet to know or discover

Beyond is what is not in the reach, but we can not limit the definition to that.

Ok, problems will arise in drawing a line btw the Natural especially natural laws we don't know about yet and the Supernatural.

Also, if Supernatural occurs only where Natural laws don't reach/cover, then we can't experience the Supernatural in our Universe, cos our Universe is covered by natural laws.

Reyginus: Which premature trust?

For believing and laying reliance/trust on a being as if it really exists.

The traditionalist spokesman could have been lying, he isn't compelled nor credible to tell the Truth. The police reported gunshot wounds on the killed policemen, except we believe machete can inflict gunshot wounds; the police report contradicts the spokesman's story.

Besides the whole story is shaky, machete armed men aren't superior in combat against firearmed police.

Reyginus: By this what you are suggesting is that a religious freethinker cannot see reason to trust, but reasons after trusting.
Thus, his reason is shaped by his trust for the entity in question.
One thing you need to understand is that freethinkers are not born, it(freethinking) is more like a dimension of understanding which negates whatever restriction liable to induce a distorted appreciation of a subject.
A stage of awareness that carries no bias for one's belief system.
Anybody can first trust and later rethink involve in 'freethinking' to ascertain the truism of whatever he/she holds.
As long as this be the case, that is, our thinking not restricted by a certain bias but moulded by an understanding of it, then we lay claim to freethinking.

Such premature trust could serve as a bias

To the African mind, it is very consistent to accept the story. The storyteller played on our bias to believe "MAGiC".

To OP please how do we separate Superstition from Supernatural?

Your story is amazing and extraordinary, I will take it as it is and it is quite a unique experience.

I want us to understand what the supernatural means. So I will a lot of questions.

You define Supernatural as what's (some force) beyond our scientific knowledge and the laws of nature. I must add that we are not omniscient beings, hence we do not have all knowledge about Nature. We learn more and more daily, and the level of our understanding increases dramatically. Scientific subjects are more and more difficult and puzzling.

In the light of this: can we define Supernatural as what's beyond our PRESENT knowledge of the laws of Nature?

Also, what do you mean by "beyond"? Do you mean a violation of natural laws OR the Supernatural controls a region of affairs where Natural laws don't cover and can't reach?

^^
The search is still on, and a probable natural process is not far off.

The quintessential freethinker is in the mould of Socrates, the only man to know he is ignorant. The freethinker is consciously in search of the truth, he is willing to forsake all traditional "truth" even ethics. He is unbound by all authorities except Reason.

He will appear insensitive to society, disregard and subordinate Society's goals, aims and practices.

The freethinker is a rebel in short.

What of an individual subscribing after due scrutiny to a religious dogma as his personal belief??

To clear a few things.

Most theists frequently make heavy weather about chance. Probability is the consideration for hidden variables, it does not mean they violate immutable physical laws. A projectile is still governed by physical laws, yet there are variables which we can't compute em all. So u wldnt know the exact points it wld land.

The experiment was successful, because its results are: it is probable for building blocks of life to arrive in this certain condition.

striktlymi: Morning Kay,

My bible dictionary tells me that trusting in God has nothing to do with freethinking...

Morning

It does, because the Christian is unable emotionally to suspend his belief in God before proving and confirming his existence.

Reyginus: Kay, I think it will only be so if the reason for trusting God is not given nor allowed to be reasoned.
And this is not the case.

from a surface view, yes BUT its unorganised to prove the existence of a being AFTER trusting it.

^^

A Christian can not be a freethinker cos he MUST trust God. Ihedinobi can vouch for that.

^^
I don't just see how an intelligent being can operate/manipulate without an environment. An intelligent being must work within an environment, he must first understand how the environment works and then manipulate it to fit his own desires.

Hence the environment functions and can be understood independently from the intelligent being.

Miller's experiment focuses on whatever combination of chemical compounds possible at that time, in which life building blocks can arise. His selective method of singling out particular compounds is to that end. Miller's aim is understanding his environment.

Its like mixing hydrogen with oxygen just to see its end product (water apparently).

@logicboy

I'm not anonyizing nor merely opposing you for the sake of it. Your definition of authority is too narrow

Authority implies on the influence of another person/people/being

Authority need not be a person or a being. It could be a concept like the State, a collection of ideas. The keyword is prevailing influence. And Reason does influence our decisions as to what's true or false.

Pastor Olu T: Let us discuss the supernatural and i will share some personal testimonies with you?

I'm willing to listen, first we must define what the supernatural is.

Logicboy, for you reason and evidence are the only paths to truth, in as it is: that is authority.you consult it at dilemmas and in finding statements true. Reason in your belief supercede all other epistemological authorities (faith, intuition).

Ihedinobi: Hi Bella3

Um, quite a question you have there. I hope the "skepticism" of the unbelievers is not getting to you. Even if it is, the Lord is more than able to keep them that have trusted in Him.
.

So I'll say first of all that even if God made His Creation deterministic by nature or semi-deterministic, He's got every right in the book to do so. After all, it's His Creation.

Second, the answer to your question, dear sis, is that God is not at all subject to time. In His reality, He does not have to look forward to a future or backward to a past. He commands time. Thus, He sees everything happening at all times as though it were all happening at once. He knows what decisions you will make in your future because He is watching you make them in the future at the very same time that you make them. So He does not "predict" the future as we would, rather, He witnesses it.

If God can do whatever with his Creation, can any value judgement be made about that?

Ok God always sees the future as a now, that doesn't still solve the omniscience/freewill problem. The thing with freewill is that the end product is undetermined and all chips are still in the hands of the free willed being.

Logicboy03: Simple, a feethinker is one that forms opinions and thoughts based on reason/logic/evidence and not on authority.

A freethinker wouldnt be a religious fellow, especially with faith based religions

however evidence and logic/reason both constitute authority.

Qkeyxyz: How can you be free when you refuse to acknowledge the possibilities of other forms of logic and existence just because they are not your chosen path(not because you know all things). You are just as slave-minded as every other bigot out there.

What other forms of logic are there?!

^^
Importing ideas, the writers of the OT never intended.

^^
When the scriptures appear to cause injustice or absurd, it must not be taken literally. What happens to miracles in that case?

Emusan: I try to protect your ignorant you seems adamant. If mathematics/Mathematical truths have no cause or creator according to you and it's true about nature then you gave more meaning to this thread by asking these questions,
*how come it exist an information? So it comply with the four attributes of UDI.
*And how come evolutionist says nature contians only matters? because if math has no cause or creator and can't be seen it must surely be immaterials.



Go ahead to manipulate it and let's see how you can prove it.



I'm not sure you're a science student, how can you say a Universal law is invalid by mouth or because you're opportune to hold a keypad without proven it wrong first! You need to do some check up.

What does the evolutionist have to do with our talk, that's junk you are dragging here. Explain why you think mathematics has a cause.

Besides the UDI is a definition and stop calling it a universal law. Unfortunately for your definition it defines information solely as a command. This is abjectly and self evidently false.

And also you shoot yourself in the foot by claiming immaterial is necessarily created and that God is immaterial #sad for you.