₦airaland Forum

^^
What makes u conclude that its from God?

What is the possible consequence of a stagnant Sun to Earth, other than nothing, thus betraying Joshua's ignorance of astronomy.

Disappointing religious comments.

honor2011: Bro, have u ever read the Quran. It contains numerous and uncountable scientific evidences.

You ought to say Truths, cos the Quran then obviously didn't have a concept of Science.

[quote author=Hye-Bits]MacDaddy, your atheism/materialist philosophy has no foundation in 21st century science and knowledge world. Your believe as materialist is devoid of fact that could be subjected to scientific proof. The reason you guys continue to support this fallacy of evolution, infinite matter and time is as a result of your delusion of facts of creation. Believe it or not, atheism/materialist/neo-darwinism is a religion that you guys propagate and fight with delusion. Evolution is deceit, which has its bedrock in materialist religion of Greek era. Darwin was not the originator, it is of Greek, but this has Darwin as early propagator along with his followers like you. Materialist philosophy has brought great damages and ignorance to this world when it most thrive in 19th century and earliest 20th century. As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th century-Nazism, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST in concept called NATURAL SELECTION. A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. Nothing will materialism/atheism world will bring to this world but great ruin. Brother you bring forth your proof to dialogue if you have them, good day.[/quote]Questions of morality mingled indiscriminately with metaphysics

Uyi Iredia: God is responsible for the causal relationship. His very act which is a causality in itself is seperate from the causal relationships in the universe he established and which we observe.

So some sort of universal causality is so important/necessary that even God uses it.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, why are we dancing like this? But suffering does not exist without a purpose in God's creation. What's your point?[/quote]But it is not necessary and logical possible for God to use an alternate option other than suffering which he is adverse to achieve his end/purpose.

@Enigma

Thanks for the correction. The problem of infinity will arise only if absolute time is assumed, for me I don't there is absolute time.

Also note that if God existed, he would be a subject of reality

@PAK

Your father's view on God as a force still doesn't account for the other existing parts of the Universe, it doesn't explain time or matter.

On the big bang implication; the state prior to this present Universe already accounts for all the matter and energy present now. In order words they were in a condensed state with the potential to expand.

That's because reality is a background.

God is only useful as a creator

JeSoul: Is Physics more accurate than Philosophy?

Philosophy is Mother of Physics

pak: and I think that's the essence of a thread such as this.

You have the opportunity to explain where from the atheist view point the world sprung out from so that we can stop speculating . . .or am I missing something about the definition of an atheist

Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.

The appearance of designs and orderliness is directly attributable to the Universe's personality, which may be called physical laws which we in turn are compelled by necessity to follow. That's why our cars follow the relevant laws of motion, our houses gravity, and our inventions are more or less discoveries of how the Universe accommodates our ideas.

In order words, it has always being here

tevinsolt: lmaooo fittest not the strongest.....actually "strong" fits into term "fittest" a child pointing a gun at an elderly is not a situation of who is strong or not but the case of two men with varying strengths competing for food or water tell me who wins

In that case, the greater strength has an advantage. But in another scenario as who is likelier to survive a famine btw a slim small man and a muscular huge man, the smaller guy has the advantage. Fit varies to circumstances.

tevinsolt: the books in the Bible were written by different men over the course of many years and it aligns perfectly which shows that there is someone who transcends time that authored the writing the writing of those books, what are the odds that many things in this book has happened thus far when they are well documented

By what means do you know the authors or their motives? Do you suggest a divine source compiled the Bible?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Of course it is, but what doesn't follow is that God must do without suffering in His creation[/quote]But suffering on its own severed from a purpose IS incompatible with God's all loving nature.

I don't understand why most theists unnecessarily assume atheists accept a magically world sprung out of emptiness. Its a bad argument!

tevinsolt: Calloti doesn't even make sense....according to evolution, it is about the survival of the fittest which means killing someone is not wrong because you're just trying to get by and survive and heck who am i to judge u for killing.......if i ask an atheist how did we got here he/she could say evolution or i don't know and if i ask what happens when we die they simply don't know but they are quick to make a mockery of those that actually believe in life after death

The fittest survive not the strongest! Social animals also show as much advantage in surviving. Morality is a bigger discourse.

Consequently, I'm concluding that it is logically conceivable that God can do without suffering in his Creation.

truthislight: you forgot the laws that govern all this.
How did they come about?

Yes, the laws being the character of the Universe, but they can possibly be omitted, why place them?

The laws determine design, be it a jet engine, or a moving object, a bulding, electromagnetism, gravity, centrifugal forces etc. I wonder if the Universe came after God's intent to create, then it isn't designed! Because there was nothingness prior to the Universe!!

I understand what you trying to say Mr Anony, but suffering on its own without a connection to a purpose isn't good. Just like amputating someone's arms for no reason is.

Do you get me?

^^

If an intelligent designer is required for complexity, one can easily point to the process of rain formation and change in state of water according to varying temperatures.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Very good question......but then I am not claiming that God is bound by a greater good, neither am I claiming that an all loving God is incompatible with suffering.

What I have said is this: suffering is not evil in itself. Unnecessary suffering can be called evil but then we must realize that because evil appears unnecessary to us doesn't mean that it is also unnecessary to God since being omniscient, He understands it's purpose while we may not.[/quote]Let's begin, God is all good and will accommodate no evil, however suffering is evil ON its own, isolated from a higher purpose. Suffering might have a higher purpose, thereby making it good. But since God is not bound by necessity, suffering is therefore irreconcilable to all good God.

Uyi Iredia: As you wish.

In fact the progress was made because a Creator God was assumed to have instituted order and design in the universe. Great scientists such as Newton & Boyle thought likewise and helped humanity towards great achievements in the sciences. Your claim is wrong.

In your view, you believe something can't be created by or from nothing, right? Why do we owe a spiritual being the creation of a physical world? Different characters from the way I see it.

Your excuse for suffering/evil is to fulfill a purpose which we are unaware of cos of our insufficient knowledge. However I'm saying that, such excuse is negated by the fact that suffering is incompatible with God's supposed all loving nature and that God isn't bound by the necessity of a greater Good.

Which is first impressionable?

MacDaddy01: The beginning of the article is a fail.


Rational skeptics are progressive not conservatives. Conservative does not change tradition. A rational skeptic is progressive in thinking, changing and improving as new facts come out.

A conservative will not change what works for him or her unless the thing is broken.

Skeptics that doubt all epistemological tools and a grasp on reality, kinda sophists. It doesn't refer us.

Mr Anony, I'd ont see how an omniscient omnipotent and all loving being being bound by any purpose other than that dictated by him. Therefore, he can't be bound by a necessity of suffering.

But there is suffering.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You asked me to notice the words in bold, now please notice the words in red.

It is very obvious to me that by referring to phones and computers insinuating a maker, MyJoe was referring to the fact that they are complex machines hence ought to be products of a complex mind. It is irrelevant whether these complex machines can breathe air as opposed to being plugged into electric power.

The question is not about the nature of these machines but their complexity and whether or not a complex mechanism(structure) indicates complex mind behind it.[/quote]Which is it, a phone suggests a maker because of its complexity or by our experience phones are made by men?

The letter part is funny.

@mrjoe

I think you are stuck on textbook deism, seeing it as another religion, one that is traceable to some founder or founders in the Enlightenment era rather than the simple acknowledgement of God that it is

You in the bolded suggested some objectivity in God, taking him away from some definition by probable peeps in the Enlightenment Era!!

What exactly binds all deists together?!

Points to a cultural stereotyped God?!

Don't you think its discriminatory and intolerant to hold such a view against unbelievers (non adherents)