₦airaland Forum

..

Truthlight and davidlyan

Both of you haven't still responded on my points. I have tried to be clear.

I was saying experience of a phenomenon is the sole criteria for knowing whether it was intelligently designed or naturally made. We can identify man made designs by their association with man.

However intricate designs like the water cycle don't have an intelligent hand guiding it or designing it, therefore it is naturally occuring.

For Gravity, we haven't seen an intelligent being coming along to put it there, so we can't presume intelligent design.

Truthlight was concerned about chance being blind etc. Water doesn't boil by chance, clouds don't form by chance, neither do mountains; because they all follow physical laws, hence chance is not needed.

^^
Yet why ban all Galileo's books and helicentricism?

And why was Galileo indicted for heresy for promoting helicentric model, because that was what was in his charge

@truthlight

Your responses were incoherent and repetitive. About 5 of the same answers to diff issues.

You didn't seem to understand I'm saying because you keep repeating the same thing over and over and meddling issues. For example the mainframe example was meant to show how difficult it is to prove consciousness of another person, rather you dived in with who created the computer!

I will repeat myself again, the causal factors for structural complexity are known by experience. Man made complexities can easily be recognized as we are familiar with them. Namely cars, planes, ships. On the other hand we come across complexities that are natural without an intelligent hand. Namely mountains, rivers, planet formations, star formations, supernovae.

Now to claim natural complexities are man made is ridiculous because such is contrary to our familiarity and experience.

You get me?

Ubenedictus: galileo lack substantial physical proof that made it hypothesis.
And abt u last sentence abt the 'stifling' of science i get ur line of arguement, and that stifling only happened becos galileo and co were argueing scripture. That was like and invitation to the church. Copernicus was never suspect of heresy because he kept his work within d realm of science, galileo became suspect of heresy because he took his arguement into religion he was no longer on science but on theology dat mean he was asking d judgement of d theologians. I hope dat ansa's d first question.
It is truly unfortunate that his condemnation may have stalled enquiry into our solar system.

Copernicus wasn't as outspoken as Galileo. A charge of heresy was drawn against Galileo before the trial in which he argued the scriptures.

Then the Church actually ban Galileo's books and outlawed and censored helicentric model teachings.

What was the Church's basis for heresy?

All I'm saying is Galileo backed by observations had gone beyond hypothesis. Hypotheses are random speculations without any empirical backing at all.

My accusations against the Church are for stifling Science and its development, likewise its course.

We are discussing Chruch vs science and the hardships perpetuated at Galileo by the Church. Given that Aristotle/Ptolemy's geocentric model and Typho's geohelicentric model are scientific. And both were experiencing a revolution.

The church's attitude was to pick sides which gave weigh to its own doctrines and bluntly refuse those that go against it.

The Church stood with Aristotle/Ptolemy model, because it believed it agreed with the Scriptures, despite the fact that it was crumbling. Galileo further provided observations to back up Copernicus's model and additional physical proofs to create a comprehensive theory on its own, though incomplete!

Geocentricism wasn't viable at all anymore. And some sort of agreement had to be found in Helicentricism in order to accept Typho's views (which were modifications and with the powerful observations of Galileo)

The Church's response was to try a scientist for heresy on account of his research.

truthislight: how do you mean? Shade more light to your big claim up there.

Dont you think for a complex entity like you to exist it calls for more than mere chance?



a house is less complex than you. No?

But you are willing to accept the notion of a designer for a house you accidentally meet at the centre of the forest even though you find no person around claiming to be the builder, however, you are unwilling to accept the notion of a designer for you brain and person, why and how? .

Your brain and the house which has the remotest possibility of appearing by chance?



error!
The chances that a squeezed piece of paper at certain conditions can get deformed and become squeezed due to the forces of nature is very realistic and plausible.

But your brain, coming by chance? Please explain how?




do you also have the experience of the causality of your brain?
^^^ please explain.



your words!

I belief the house you live in came by chance, if not, i smell delusion.

If you read my post at all, I addressed this issue, that man made designs are recognised due to experience. A house in the middle of a forest will be said to be man made because all houses are built by men. Same with a birdnest, if I see a birdnest in a forest, I'd know by experience that a bird built it and not a monkey ( they are incredibly intelligent too). Same with a beaver's dam.

But the water cycle right before us, works its cyclical magic is the hallmark of Nature. No man or monkey or bird is responsible for it. Same with volcanos and river formations.

Who makes brains? Humans don't manufacture em. They are developed naturally. And in all species that have them, the brains develop naturally. So Nature takes credit for that.

answer the questions above underwise know that your type is true to the book of Psalm(and you know what it says i suppose?)



"where ever there is intelligence, there is a mind, Where ever there is a mind there is a person".

Am guessing you are not aware of that ^^^



your limitation my friend.

It is called "common sense", i guess it is not that common anyway.(that is why Psalms calls such kind persons FOOLs)

Modern Mainframe computers are intelligent, do you think they are persons as a result? What if they were designed to produce intelligent effects??

with your limitation in knowledge i guess you dont have the full gist.
Well, arrogant "types" dont learn, neither do they ask questions.
they claim to know all.

You didn't answer my claim. You only claimed superior knowledge.

befor the advent of christianity and Islam, normal humans without mental problem say there is God and they have no need for the bible or q'uran to teach them about this "ultimate reality".
but you, without a contrary evidence have presumptiousely said "there is no God"
how?

This is irrelevant. What common ppl say, is left to their sentiments.

with your "type", that ^^ should be obvious.



What has that ^^ to do with the claim that "there is no God" ?

How did you proved that ^ to yourself if not delusion?

You have no answers?? The truth remains God is a claim of the theist.

Ubenedictus: much of what u wrote here is true,but it wasnt j ust 2 theory someone once said they were abt 7, d geocentric came frm aristotle wu said there was no stellar parallax, d oda by Copernicus and defended by galileo, d third by typho, aristotle said everything moved around d earth galileos telescope saw d oda planet moving around d sun dat distroy aristotle but not typho, infact it supported typho since galileo had alot yet unproven copernicus wasnt widely considered.this is one of galileo's arguement frm wiki. Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides
Galileo Galilei. Portrait by Leoni

Cardinal Bellarmine had written in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun".[26] Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to him that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.[27] The reference to tides was removed by order of the Inquisition.

For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. He circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.[28] His theory gave the first insight into the importance of the shapes of ocean basins in the size and timing of tides; he correctly accounted, for instance, for the negligible tides halfway along the Adriatic Sea compared to those at the ends. As a general account of the cause of tides, however, his theory was a failure.

If this theory were correct, there would be only one high tide per day. Galileo and his contemporaries were aware of this inadequacy because there are two daily high tides at Venice instead of one, about twelve hours apart. Galileo dismissed this anomaly as the result of several secondary causes, including the shape of the sea, its depth, and other factors.[29] Against the assertion that Galileo was deceptive in making these arguments, Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that Galileo developed his "fascinating arguments" and accepted them uncritically out of a desire for physical proof of the motion of the Earth.[30] Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[31] He also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets,[32] considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.
so d typho was considered a modification of aristitle.

Typho's theory was geo-helicentricism. A modification influenced by Copernicus and Kepler's views and how untenable geocentric model was. The Geocentric model was cracking and its chief rescue was the Bible.

truthislight: and yet you say you are not what Psalm calls you?

When you are lost due to human definitions?

If there were no other humans on earth what will you have said is your reasons for saying that "there is no God"?

At that point you will have claimed that you fell from the sun i supposed?

And you then say you have a brain?

Your brain is a disappointment.

Is it that you are incapable of making rational deduction?

You didn't make an effective reply. My origin or the origin of life doesn't necessarily point to God. Because God is likewise believed to be Life! So why ask me that.

You mentioned a house, good point. But a squeezed piece of paper despite its roughness and lack of elegant precise design will always be known to be man made. Because we have experience of its causality.

We also have experience of structural complexities arising from Nature; mountains, planetary bodies, stars, rivers, lightning storms etc.

Hence God is not a necessary creator of our complex world.

God in most definitions is Conscious. That purported fact is deemed impossible to prove.

If God created our world, it would be perfect. But since it is not. The valid conclusion is God didn't otherwise his perfection will flow into the world.

God is a contradiction, given that he is incomprehensible and despite that known, that he is good and yet perpetuates evil. Omnipotent yet falls low to resort to design.

Above of all, God is the claim of the theist. And apart for the lack of a coherent argument.

truthislight: how does this turned to, "there is no God"?

I was spoeaking on several issues

@thehomer

Proving respiration or the failure to prove respiration does not disprove and prove God respectively, hence not relevant to our discussion.

The main question is the value of Faith. Enigma has conceded that Faith can stand alone.

Therefore God is a creature of Faith.

JeSoul: Suffrey suffrey when making any "pronouncements" in the future that you cannot *cough cough* back up. Occasionally, we will not allow you guys to get away with it . I will allow you to face Enigma, make I siddon watch. Cheerios amigos.

BUT you didn't point out what was illogical about my "opinion"?!

Enigma: Did he prevent foreigners from worshipping their gods? Whenever the israelites went after foreign idols --- did they not subsequently accept that they should not be doing so because they were violating their own covenant?

Better. That's my point. The Israelites were intolerant towards other religions. Simple. They persecuted pagans as far as their powers could go. Invading and perpetuating genocides. Their covenant wasn't the standard for free speech.

Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and measure that with what's in the Bible.

It suports free speech because it does not prevent the fool from saying there is no God; it simply tells him that he is a fool for saying so. Afterall your colleagues exercise their free speech by calling theists "deluded", "reetards", "nutjobs" etc.

Rather the Bible is in an instructive language, and following the trend of the numerous hateful verses preceding it, makes the damning condemnation against atheists with authority. Its not simply expressing an opinion.

And the verse doesn't take advantage of free speech BUT it doesn't promote or praise free speech.

Nope, I have not said anything different from what i've been saying.




It seems your problem is with my use of the word 'underpin'. If I've misused it, I have already clarified with my other posts.

For avoidance of doubt: what I meant by "underpin" is in fact "support".

As I said above, Christianity stands on its own irrespective of Science but is supported by it.

So Faith can stand alone??

@Mr ENigma

1. The worship of Baal for example. Jehu murdered an entire family for it. He murdered thousands of ppl in a temple because they worshipped Baal. The ten commandments forbid the worship of idols.

2. Pls use your superior intellectual sense to explain how that verse preached free speech.

3. That's different from what you said earlier.

4. Are you saying now that Science don't underpin Faith anymore??

Your quote:

"Faith informed by knowledge (including science) and reason (including philosophy) UNDERPIN Christianity."

Enigma: I gave you two verses. Beyond that, study the teachings of Jesus and his disciples as recounted in the Bible.



You say this because you have never studied that verse or meditated deeply on it. And no it is not a basis to persecute atheists. Now, here is a thing: "separation of church and state" is now a tool/basis to persecute theists e.g. the school girl prevented from making a heartfelt tribute to her grandfather.



Yep, science was; and you have already accepted Bacon's role in the origination of modern science.

1. Jesus never did preach on tolerating foreign religions. Moses destroyed a gold calf, in Mosaic law the worship of idols was punishable by death. Jesus supports this, because he claimed he hasn't come to change Mosaic law.

2. Meditate on the verse? Or understand it? The verse is very clear. It condemns atheists.

3. You said Faith is supported with Science to authenticate Christianity. But the implication of Bacon originating Science, is that it was absent at christianity's roots. Therefore your claim falls apart.

Simply show how Science was present and used to prop Christianity in the 2nd century. Thank you.

@jesoul

Looool!!

Enigma: I'm glad we agree that (a) jerks can be called jerks, (b) free speech is a Christian value, and (c) that it was Christians and 'religious people' who gave the world free speech as a human right.




1. Let the wheat and tares grow together
2. The fool has said in his heart that there is no God (Forgive me but I have done this deliberately; the passage supports free speech )



No; rather I think you should study the meaning and history of "science"; and notice that my reference to Bacon was of modern science.

1. An isolated verse isn't effective.

2. That doesn't. Apparently its condemnation. A legitimate basis to persecute atheists.

3. Was Science in the 2nd century when Christianity originated and developed?? I didn't talk about Bacon. You introduced him. How is his name relevant to our discussion?

JeSoul: Please, pretty please, pretty ditty please with a cherry on top of the cheese....show us this reasoning.

1. God is a contradiction.

2. God is incomprehensible

3. God is perfect but an imperfect world

4. God is purported to be omnipotent, hence the use of design is useless to HE who wills anything.

5. God is purposeless and that runs contrary to teleology

For empiricism

1. God is exempted from empirical scrutiny.

Enigma: 1. So jerks should not complain when called jerks.
2. Free speech IS a Christian value; and it was the Christians and 'religious people' who came up with the idea of free speech as a human right; if it had been left to militant/evangelical atheists, we would never have free speech as a human right ---- only speeches promoting atheism would be tolerated. Example: school girl who was prevented from making a heartfelt tribute to her grandfather simply because she mentioned God!



I don't know what you are talking about. Oh, by the way, evangelical atheism is still a religion.




Evidently, you have not read the Bible or if you have, you do not understand it. In any event, it was the Christians (e.g. Bacon) who gave you modern science. And of course we cannot forget the contributions of the Moslems too to global knowledge.

1. We agree on this.

2. Provide a biblical provision that praises free speech. I'd mention the intolerance towards other religions of other nations. And the intolerance towards idol worship in Israel.

3. Good point, Francis Bacon gave us Science, however if science wasn't formalized in the time of Francis Bacon, then it further stresses my point that Science wasn't present as at the time Christianity originated because Christianity was over a thousand year old as at the Bacon's time.

Enigma: So if a person comes to a public space and acts like a jerk, why then should he complain when he is called a jerk and a fool? Afterall that is what he is.

EDIT Christianity does NOT deny anyone free speech!



Evangelical atheism is a religion; it might be an idiotic religion with idiotic values; it is still a religion.




Faith informed by knowledge (including science) and reason (including philosophy) underpin Christianity.

1. Called such a person a jerk is likewise free speech. However, free speech isn't a Christian value. Galileo persecution is an example.

2. Nobody knows what that means.

3. Christianity in the 2nd century was unaware of science.

frosbel: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" - 2 Timothy 3:16

That's your OWN opinion actually.

Enigma: 1. Nobody says atheists should not use 'public space' to speak. However, using public space to speak is not the same as using public space to behave like jerks.

2. Why do atheists not buy TV and radio slots to preach their atheism message and evangelise for their religion?

3. On this forum, no one has prevented atheists from evangelising; look the 'religious people' (actually including both Christians and Moslems) have been quite tolerant of the evangelical atheists and their nonsense and obnoxiousness. We know that if the atheists had control they will NOT be as tolerant as the 'religious people' have been. Heck, the 'religious people' were even voting for one of you atheists in that recent voting exercise! If that is the intolerance of 'religious people', let us compare it to the intolerance of the evangelical atheists and see which is worse!

4. The illogicality of atheism is not dependent on any particular 'God'; atheism simply does not stack up in the face of scientific and philosophical knowledge TODAY or at anytime.

1. That is part of the right to free speech, one can act as a jerk if he likes, one can be wrong if one wishes to. Most established religions deny ppl free speech cos they believe such ppl are wrong, which is tyranny.

3. To treat the antithesis of a subject the same as the subject is contradictory ridiculous. However atheism on its own can't be a religion.

4. Faith rather than Reason or Science is the basis for JudeoChristian God.

frosbel: He did, David spoke under inspiration .

The evidence for GOD is overwhelming, only a FOOL will think otherwise.

You cannot wish GOD away try as you may, one day these confused atheists will stand before GOD in awe and trembling , alas it may be too late for them to recover from their stark folly !

Even the devils who are superior in wisdom believe in GOD and tremble.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder - James 2:19

It borders on arrogance, ingratitude, moral ineptitude and insanity to pretend that GOD is 'dead'.

Talk is cheap , especially when the one to whom the talk is aimed at does not respond or simply ignores the small minds.

Relax frosbel, let's take it gradually

First, God didn't write the Bible or that particular biblical provision, David probably did.

Second its not God's statement as a consequence of the above. It is David's

Third it is David's IDEA of God's wishes and preference and his despise of atheists.

Fourth it is of your own belief that David was inspired by God.

So 4 separate steps and implications.

Enigma: it is all rubbish! If the problem is with the nuisance factor, we will see lots of threads complaining or appealing that Christians etc should not constitute themselves into a nuisance.

I am a Christian who spends a lot of time in Nigeria and I find that A LOT of 'churches' in Nigeria are unquestionably nuisances with their loudspeakers that are being used to disturb others (Christians, including myself, and non-Christians alike) unnecessarily.

HOWEVER that is not because of Christianity at all or even because of the nuisance people's own Christianity at all; it is a function of a society where we have lost a proper sense of real values and have a wrong understanding of what is right. Let me demonstrate:

-- the chap who lives in a face me I face you or even a block of flats will turn up the volume of his Michael Jackson or Kollington Ayinla, so that his neighbours can hear and so that they will take
-- the Okada chap will put a horn on his bike which is the same as that on a 911 bus making a blaring noise; hence, I like that old saying: since Rasaki buy Kawasaki, we no hear word again.


So the excuse that it is in your face and that is why they come to forums to behave like jerks ----- just does not wash.

It is a matter of conscience not individual Christianity (if any sense can be made out of that). Christians wear their battered conscience like a badge

Logicboy03: The funniest thing in this thread is that the religious people here are showing how immoral or irrationally ignorant they are.

One must be irrational or a liar not to understand that atheists have every right to complain about religion or God due to the constant discrimination they face in the name of God. Just look at the things form last year alone that one has to deny;

-Atheist arrested for being an atheist in indonesia
-Secular constitution breached by government in Nigeria to fund religious holidays, sharia and churches
-Distrust and lies against you because your're an atheist in Nigeria (case of Leo Igwe and Frosbel's fellow christian wesbsite's criminal accusation)
-Battle over abortion rights in America where christians want to enforce their religious views on the public
-Atheist dicrimination in the American military
-Parents kicking our teenagers to the streets for disbelief
-American christians claiming that shootings happen in school because prayers were removed from schools (insensitive to atheist victims/parents)


These and many more.


So when a religious person complains that atheists spend a lot of time criticising Religion or people who believe in God, the religious person must be foolish to ignore what his religion and religious people do to atheists in the first place.

It is your bibles and quran that strick the first blow- claiming atheists and disbelievers are fools.

These are valid accusations to how religions like christianity and Islam invade privacy of others, they voluntarily drag criticism towards their religions.

frosbel: let's not mince words, an atheist is a FOOL !! God says so and I agree .

Forsbel, that's false. God didn't say atheists are fools, rather the Bible said that God said atheists are fools. That's the word from the Bible.

Enigma: ^^^ Most things about evangelical atheism are senseless. Even fundamentally, atheism let alone evangelical atheism is illogical and irrational. All the books that their bishops and evangelists are writing - when examined intellectually, logically and philosophically - simply amount to building castles in the air. As a professor in one of the great universities said: you can pass our exams by writing bulls.hit ----- as long as you write the bulls.hit well.

Look even their pope and Dady G.O. (aka Richard Dawkins) knows it; even his statement and actions betray his knowledge/awareness (deep down) of the illogicality and nonsense of his position.

Take for example his papal declaration or fatwa that his followers should mock and ridicule people of faith ---- is that rational discourse by the standard of any intellectually or logically sound person?

"Mock them, ridicule them --- in public" he declared.

I don't understand why atheists don't deserve the use of public space? Religious leaders get to enjoy free speech, but it irritating for atheist or antitheist to speak?!

As to the illogical nature of atheism, its dependent on the purported being God. His existence appeals only to Faith. Faith itself is a trust authority, not really sound in epistemological terms.

It is not illogical to pronouce God absent on the sole basis of Reason and empiricism.

What does this have to do with souls?!

So what have we learnt about the soul? HOW is the eternal nature of the soul known?

I'm glad you brought this back to life.

The geocentric theory states all planets and heavemly bodies in the solar system revolve around the Earth. Galileo with aid of the telescope was able to detect a planet revolving around Jupiter. That only destroys the geocentric theory.

Also he was able to detect and calculate the paths of Jupiter, Venus and some others revolving around the Sun. As far as facts are concerned, this was not a hypothesis.

It forms the present theory of heliocentrism.

The Catholic Church and Martin luther opposed it based on their findings in the Bible.

tchaik: It baffles me how you Religious people use the term 'Agnostic' so wide!!

Agnosticism "is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."


But if you are using Agnosticism here as somebody who doesn't give a horse sh!t about unna god, abeg brother, How do you argue with such a person? A real "agnostic" can never be seen arguing about god!

Good point!