₦airaland Forum

Adeks: @Op. i've never dated a girl on a 'yes' or 'no' basis because i just see it as being childish. All i have to do wit a girl i like is be friends with her and be myself @ all times. My advice, just find a way of being friends with her, be clean, have a good breath, dress well and try to know d tins she likes. If u're gonna have a chance, she'll send out vibes, just be sure to recognize it. good luck

Strong point! I learnt the "smell rule" the hard way. Went in stinking of weed.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]That is why we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.......we can afford to have different opinions on beauty, we can disagree over whether my grandmother is prettier than yours or whether yours is prettier than mine, there are no major consequences to that. However, when we come to the case of morality, we cannot merely leave it at opinions. The consequence is chaos.[/quote]hmmmmmm.

Let me make it even better for you: Jesus Christ is the complete manifestation of God's nature. His life is the standard for morality. Jesus Christ is good and any character that does not match the character of Christ is evil.

Ok. Next question: how is there moral universality when MOST societies before and after Christ, don't follow the Jesus Christ standard, yet have this subtle normative rule system!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]that's surprisingly poor reasoning coming from you my friend. I noticed how you were harping on "true good" and "true bad". If you recall, I used those terms when arguing that subjectivity can't give us anything definite when it comes to good and evil. Contrasting with "false good" and "false bad" only amounts in cheap wordplay. "false good would simply mean "not good" and "false bad" = "not bad". You have scored no points here.

The whole talk about copies of an original morality is merely an argument you have cooked up so as to force your conclusion in. The fact remains that the consequence of claiming subjective morality implies that we have no standard for it and hence morality becomes meaningless[/quote]Subjectivity simply shows diversity, nothing more. The fact that we have diff concepts on beauty doesn't mean there is no beauty. It just means we have diff opinions!

When you mentioned true good, you suggested some sort of good that is been canvassed out there, that is not real/true. So false good isn't a bad terminology.

Are "Ethical" codes of societies that don't conform to God's nature moral?

Since there is true good and true bad, then there is false good and false bad. In order words, copies of the original morality. But we can establish that all societies have some sort of moral code, and most are imitations of the original one handed to us by God.

Which accounts for the lack of a universal moral code! Owed to the fact that there isn't a universal value belief in the true God) among all societies, so how can you still claim an objective standard?!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]No it is not. The physical causes spiritual effects all the time. For instance, when a computer causes a virtual world video game, If you were a character in that video game, all you know is your 2d virtual universe. You can trace your existence back to it's origin (which will only really be when the game was switched on). You will have have no idea that a 3d physical entity caused your 'virtual' universe to exist.[/quote]The virtual game world isn't spiritual, neither is there any true bridge btw it and the universe as a whole. Rather its mathematical abstractions and concepts and information. Simple.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]God's nature.[/quote]I will take this as your definition of true good, right?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My friend I don't know what else you want me to do....you deny that there is an objective moral basis for defining what is good and evil and yet you want me to define what is good and evil. How do you expect me to do that?

It is like denying that there is an objective measure of length and then ask me to define definite lengths. How does one do that?[/quote]Simply define what you mean by "true good" and "true bad"! It is not an unreasonable request, you seem to hold some sort of idea on it, so spill it.

Ihedinobi: Oh, I don't know about that. I mean it's you guys that complain that we employ mental gymnastics to defend our Faith when we give you answers you can't rebut or something like that.

I think y'all need to make up your mind whether Christianity is too shallow or too deep. You keep accusing it of being both.

Like the Trinity?

Like foundational issues of Christianity?

Like interpretation problems and subjectivity?

Like the Perfect Creator redeeming his broken Creation?

Good day inesQ, to inquire for the cause of the initial order is also an acknowledgement of a beginningleSs rationality. If there wasn't any order in the beginning, a cause can't be connected to the effect in the first place.

Christianity is too shallow.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]True but how does this relate to what we are talking about? Are you somehow suggesting that it is possible it wasn't only one God in the beginning?[/quote]competing explanations.

But then everything physical did begin to exist or did they not? wouldn't that equally be 'magic' if it all began to exist from nothing?

Claiming a spiritual cause for the physical is as illogical as an ex nihilio cause.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]That is the reason why there is need for an objective moral basis. As long as you reject this I can't help you. It is like asking what is 2+1 while denying that anything like 3 exists. You must accept that 3 exists for 2+1 to make any sense.[/quote]Anony it is not the same, also you have not explained what "true good" and "true bad" means.

You keep begging the question here.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I don't agree with you. If that's all it is, then there really isn't any true good or evil.[/quote]What do "true evil" and "true good" mean?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Sorry I don't quite get your analogy especially the part in bold[/quote]Since there are about two ppl in the area, all the footprint§ there wouldn't mean they are mine.

We have also always assumed that energy permeates everything, yet we have no experience of this except seeing ourselves use energy.
Now I have also given you the analogy of thought and how one can create a complex story by himself, of himself, and through himself. A physical being creating a spiritual universe in much the same way a spiritual being creates a physical universe

Exactly, you are beginning to understand me. But the difference between our experience and God's circumstances, is that God had no platform but a void. There was nothing to design with. No gravity, no spacetime, no light, no atmosphere, no pressure or density.

On the subject of the spiritual being creating a physical world, it is more of magic cos you can't give what you don't have. The spiritual being lacks the physical substance to create the Universe.

I have never seen a sermon against corruption among the Pentecostal churches

InesQo: but it does not answer mine, "How could rational and ordered creations have emerged from random and unordered particles?"

Because there is already an underlying system of rationaliTy

Homosexuality can't be legalized.

@mranony

Morality is basically rules which contents fluctate with the values and perception a society has.

Societies across the world don't have the same values, neither do they share the same perception.

Therefore can't have the same moral contents.

Good and bad are extremes on a society's moral scale

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Your argument sounds like the universe is a certain way, God could have made it a different way or many different ways. Since the universe is this way and not another then God didn't make it. It doesn't follow.

It is like if I argued upon observing your footprints that your footprints show an east-west movement when you had the choice to go multiple directions therefore since it wasn't necessary for you to go east-west, the footprints are therefore not yours. It doesn't follow.[/quote]Let's take your footprint analogy, and I will modify it a bit. Let's say you don't know my footprints and there is also another person walking about in the area apart from me. Any footprint wouldn't qualify as mine. But I was the only one in the area, then mine should be anyone seen.

We have always assumed God created everything, yet we have no experience of this except seeing ourselves (intelligent designers) as miniscule gods building planes cars robots etc. But we use the laws in this universe to produce such gadgets. Rockets could be box shaped if we don't have to obey gravitational laws.

Some men prefer other men, cos they get rejected by women due to particular disabilities.

Some women feel other women are artistic masterpieces hence draw such sexual attentiob

It is all about preference. The barrier btw us and full acceptance of homosexuals is culture. We feel uncomfortable changing this cultural ideology.

[b]A teleological or design argument[1][2][3] is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology wherein purpose and design appear to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. Various concepts of teleology originated in ancient philosophy and theology.

In the Middle Ages, the Islamic philosopher Averroes introduces a teleological argument. Later, a teleological argument is the fifth of Saint Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, his rational proofs for the existence of God. The teleological argument was continued by empiricists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who believed that the order in the world suggested the existence of God. William Paley developed these ideas with his version of the watch maker analogy. He argued that in the same way a watch's complexity implies the existence of its maker, so too one may infer the Creator of the universe exists, given the evident complexity of Nature. This argument resonates with a notion of the fine-tuned Universe, [/b]

Assuming God was creating from himself or nothing, why will he finetune the universe, as a car engineer finetunes his car? The car engineer has to obey the laws of motion otherwise he wouldn't be able to meet his targets/purpose.

However God by his omnipotence can will whatever he wishes without restrict. Even to the point of creating physical laws and ensuring constant order and predictablility

[b]A teleological or design argument[1][2][3] is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology wherein purpose and design appear to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. Various concepts of teleology originated in ancient philosophy and theology.

In the Middle Ages, the Islamic philosopher Averroes introduces a teleological argument. Later, a teleological argument is the fifth of Saint Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, his rational proofs for the existence of God. The teleological argument was continued by empiricists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who believed that the order in the world suggested the existence of God. William Paley developed these ideas with his version of the watch maker analogy. He argued that in the same way a watch's complexity implies the existence of its maker, so too one may infer the Creator of the universe exists, given the evident complexity of Nature. This argument resonates with a notion of the fine-tuned Universe, [/b]

Assuming God was creating from himself or nothing, why will he finetune the universe, as a car engineer finetunes his car? The car engineer has to obey the laws of motion otherwise he wouldn't be able to meet his targets/purpose.

However God by his omnipotence can will whatever he wishes without restrict. Even to the point of creating physical laws and ensuring constant order and predictablility

YuyUj[quote author=Mr_Anony]Actually, outsider observation is very much needed for your argument to stand. You are within. The laws you observe only describe what you are seeing inside and based on those laws you can determine outcomes for things within the universe. If anything is happening to the universe on the outside, you cannot know by observing from within because you have absolutely no idea what laws - if there are any - determine the universe from the outside.

Good but remember that you are a character within the game you cannot know if you are on an Xbox or on a Playstation. All you know is your game universe.
For instance, assuming that you are a character in a 2d game. You would have absolutely no idea that there is such a thing as a 3d reality. 2d in this instance does not determine the game it only describes it. Do you get my point now?[/quote]You are correct here, however it doesn't apply to what I'm saying neither is observation relevant yet. What I have been saying is that pre existent physical laws necessitate complexity and thereafter design. Whether we observe it or not isn't useful. But the theoretical point stands that as long as God pre existed or created them, he isn't compelled nor was it necessary to create a diverse complex universe. Therefore you can't say the complex design of this universe is the handiwork/footwork of God.

fellis: Ok. But in Nigeria where I live there is no tolerance for homosexuals and they get 14 years in prison is found carrying out homosexual acts.

Nigeria adopted the declaration.

@Anony

To legitimately make the claim that the physical laws determine the universe you would have to be outside the universe and have samples of other ways that the universe could have turned out and why.

No an outsider observation isn't needed. We study physics sufficiently from within the Universe. We observe gravity and law of motion without being outside the universe.

Go back to the analogy of a video game I gave you earlier. Your point of view is from within the universe, for you, the physical laws that you observe describe the universe.

Your video game analogy touches on a platform upon which the game is built (ie PlayStation 3) which determine the game. Therefore a cartridge console can't play a ps3 cd.

In a time where there is an international declaration on the freedom of persons and freedom from discrimination based on ethnicity and sexual preference?

In a time where homosexuality is seen as a legimiate desire?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Hmm, this logic has a twist to it somewhere. The argument for design goes like this, Kay 17 arrived Lagos from Abuja therefore we deduce that he moved from Lagos to Abuja i.e a movement has occured.

Your argument is that it can be shown that Kay 17 didn't have to move (in the strict sense of the word) to arrive at Abuja from Lagos therefore since it was not necessary for Kay to move, he didn't move. this does not follow: the "necessity" does not lead to that conclusion.

If you have a problem with the word design, try creation then.[/quote]Your analogy doesn't relate to my argument. I'm saying the structural complexity is necessitated by the physical laws which determine the Universe, however to conclude God the "designer" created it, will mean these physical laws are as self existent as God himself THAT his creations must conform to them.

Now if you say God created these laws, then I have to ask why its necessary for him to do so, if not we wouldn't be able identify his handiwork.

Though we moral values and codes are not universal, however we are still compelled judge morals by our standards of the time

Smartie gurl: You have all made your points/views nd beliv me, i got ur reasons, buh watever be the case you all got to realise and understand that Gays/Lesbeins ar nt normal people nd wil never be. So if you ar there nd u are a gay/lesbien retrace ur step cuz you got it all wrong, u hav either been decievd or lured into the act. The earlier u change nd become a normal human the better for you.

From your Christian perception, its wrong. However you have no right or power to condemn a diverse and opposing act based on your dogma. That in itself is wrong

Therefore with the absence of such physical laws, the universe will lack structure. However they weren't preexistent and as long as that is true, then it isn't necessary. And as long as it isn't necessary, God can't be said to be a designer.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Good, to know that I got your point (or at least part of it). So first there is God (an infinitely powerful, infinitely intelligent eternal being) and nothing else. Then He creates from Himself by Himself through Himself. Using the phrase "God and a void" is a bit misleading because a void in this case really means nothing i.e. no thing, na-da, zilch.

The laws that you argue determine design and orderly complexity may be true if we were to design say a car within the universe. but then when talking about the universe, these laws do not determine the universe rather they describe it. We argue that the universe is designed because there are certain laws that explain it i.e. it follows a particular complex order.

To bring my argument home, let me use this analogy: Imagine that you were a character in a video game. The laws that describe the video game are the laws that will determine what you can or cannot do in the video game. The video game itself is not determined by the laws that describe it. It is determined by an 'external' intelligence.[/quote]The Universe is structured by physical laws.

^^
Also I don't like the "born this way" argument forward by gay activists, presenting it as a genetic disposition rather than a wilful act. However, given the knowledge we know about genetics, and how minute behaviour and physical structure is influemced by the genes. Such as a genius or the colour blind man. It is open and reasonable to believe some people who find their same sex sexual attractive are influenced genetically.