₦airaland Forum

davidylan: the earth has ALWAYS existed? What a trip this dude is.
Ok in what form did the earth exist and how do you know this? Evidence?
Where did the concepts of time and space begin?

Note: in actuality OR potential.

davidylan: What a load of rubbish. you are a trip dude. Read the above again and see if it makes sense to you.

So the earth... by virtue of existing means it had ALWAYS existed either in reality or in your dreams? When did the concept of time and space begin? Explain logically.

YES it has. BUT in different forms.

davidylan: Where is the proof for the big b[i]a[/i]ng dude. spill the beans.

you claim to be a scientist, are you unaware of the proofs for BIG BAN.G??

davidylan: If the world wasnt created, then where did it come from? thin air?

but the irrational option is to think they popped out of nothing! Which is a contradiction. If they aren't from nothing, then they always existed.

davidylan: and your assumption is that they appeared by magic?

no, that by virtue of EXISTing, means they had always existed in either actuality or potential.

davidylan: Again trying too hard to skirt around the point.

Of course no one expects scientists to base their models on the bible... but what have they based the big bang model on? Where is the empirical evidence for the model itself?

are you insisting you are unaware of the body of proofs for the Big Bang OR you don't think there is any proof??

davidylan: 1. Reason and logic in what exactly? It is logically implausible and statistically impossible that the earth created itself by random chance.

2. Natural world? How did it come about? By magic?

Still holding the world MUST be created. By holding such an unjustified assumption, the next rational step is to accept a Creator.

davidylan: Stop decieving yourself... your claims are just as illogical as you think religion is. You claim to base your views on the "natural world"... well how did that "natural world" appear? By magic? The laws of gravity developed how? By random chance? How did the earth form? By flinging two higgs bosons at each other? How did unicellular organisms evolve to complex multicellular plants, humans and animals? by random statistical chance? And you ask why your i think your claims are rooted in blind faith?

You keep holding an assumption that all things are created!

davidylan: I believe it by faith. However the irony is that it takes far more faith to believe that the laws of physics just appeared out of thin air by random chance...

the joke is on you bro.

No, they don't appear, they are not created, they don't commence. They get entities their characters!

davidylan: and those physical laws just appeared by useless random chance?

No, they didn't appear, they are an embodiment of existence.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Funny enough this is the same negative way you define atheism as a non-belief, well, that's by the way.
The closest thing I can give you that is an immaterial person is your mind(not your brain) Your mind can't be defined by matter and yet it exists[/quote]yes, atheism is sufficiently defined even as a negative.

Also in the same manner, the natural is an extension of the supernatural, man is a supernatural being living in a natural body therefore I believe you can know something in an extra-sensual way (i.e. beyond our senses, much like the way a person knows that he/she exists: "I know because I know".

the natural is not an extension of supernatural, cos as you have always said natural is NOT supernatural. I'm not aware of any extrasensual organ!

We can perceive revelation through our senses yes but you would realize that there is a difference between what is revealed to and what is physically investigated much like there is a difference between fact and meaning.

both pass through the same medium: senses. You are skeptical about truths through the senses, yet have no problem with revelations! Hypocritical.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Ok Martian, It appears you have finally pushed me to the wall especially with mazaje's laughter. So here goes;

Quite simply, the supernatural transcends the natural, It is an immaterial realm (in the sense that it is not defined by physical matter). It also isn't limited by space and time as we know them. I believe that man is a supernatural being in a natural body and that the inner-man (the soul) cannot be expressed in terms of space, time and matter. It is because there is a supernatural God that we have the miracle called the universe or any meaning to our existence. Satisfied now?[/quote]wouldn't creating a causal chain btw the nature and "supernatural" commit to physical laws as we understand them? Since defining wood as not water leaves a blank image in the mind, the definition of supernatural/spirituality as immaterial isn't helpful either.

I know the next thing you'll want to do is to pester me to explain it in physical terms.
But this will not work until you can tell me objectively how your physical senses are the ultimate tool for evaluation.

If your senses aren't reliable, how do you bacome aware of your existence?

I'll live you with a little parable to explain what I mean. Assuming we created a virtual world/universe software much like ours containing free-willed sentient individuals and ran it on the the intelligence of a supercomputer.
This created world will obey the rules we have coded into it. the units for measurement will be bytes of information. They will never be able to truly understand mass and space and time in the true sense i.e. physicality would elude them.

Some will say that there is no such thing as physical, they will be wrong and foolish because they are judging all existence based upon their limited senses (which we coded into them).

Others will say there is probably a physical, they would be wise because even though they don't know for sure, they are not writing of the possibility (they are acknowledging their limitations)

Others will say there is definitely a physical, these would be right even though they describe it in different ways, however in their descriptions of the physical, it is either one of them is telling the truth or all of them are lying. there cannot be multiple truths

Moral of the story: We can only truly know God by revelation. And to me, Jesus Christ is God's revelation of Himself, He is the perfect man and the perfect example upon which I base all morality and value.

I am sure we've had this conversation before.

Information and how it works is natural and physical, the software is a mere extension of our world. Aslo if our senses are unreliable, how do we percieve revelations in the first place??

davidylan: and all these appeared by random chance? It takes far more faith to believe this than it takes to believe Jonah stayed alive in the belly of a fish for 3 days.

Would you say the water cycle works by chance?? Or gravity? No! Physical laws operating.

No, its not out of context, you mentioned atheists can disprove it. But Christians share the idea of God as a supernatural force exactly as an initiating irrationality to order and design.

A calendar is conclusive proof of anomalies?! Is that what you rely on? Explain how a man walks on water?

davidylan: examples?

Life, the structure of the Universe, snowflakes, water cycle.

Such complexity has been seen to exist in Nature and not being products of man.

1supremo: I have a theistic worldview as espoused by Christ Jesus.

In the planet of fantasy?!

What is the use of Faith? To soothe the complex mind of man or seek out reality?

Deep Sight: Can you thump your chest with certainty and say that there are no scientists who absolutely and adamantly reject even the remotest possibility of a spiritual cause of phenomena?

Is it not the case that the vast majority of western scientists would be adamantly opposed to even countenancing such a possibility in their investigations?

Has it not been our joint experience even here on NL, that even mentioning such a possibility will result in basket-loads of mockery from adamantly materialist "scientific" apologists?

Was it not you who once said, in a given thread, that the scenario whereby one closes one's mind to any possibility is close minded?

Is it not true that many "scientists" minds are absolutely closed to the possibility of a spiritual cause and angle to this existence?

Is it not also true that the totality of human existence, experience and consciousness, does not warrant such a posture to the possibility?


Are you sure that there are not well recorded cases of scientists who have embarrassingly done same?

Another issue with spirituality is, its carved out to be excluded and be immune from inquiry. What Spirituality means is still vague and imprecise.

Most theists, especially deep sight has made the assumption that complexity MUST be the handiwork of an INTELLIGENT sentient being, taking inspiration from man's creativity. I would say Nature was before us, and the first designer.

chidexy: I will try to address your points one after the other:
On Otedola:
3. It's a crime to record or film private conversations without the person's knowledge (only security agencies are permitted so to do - if the case gets to the court, it may not be admissible as evidence due to technicalities

In Nigeria, such evidence is admissible, even IF you kill someone to get it. I don't think there is such law that prohibits the filming or record of private moments.

Time is existing, thus existence comes before time. Existence has no beginning. But time must have a beginning to escape the absurdity of infinity

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You have only replaced the word "useful" with "benefit". This doesn't help me at all. In what sense exactly do you mean "useful to us"?
because originally I assumed you were referring to our happiness but that answer didn't satisfy you so I think you will have to clarify your question a bit better so that we are on the same page.[/quote]Usefulness, benefit are radically different from happiness. That's obvious.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I don't see any problem with objective morality, "the if God changes his mind..." is your own invention. My argument stands on the premise that God's nature is unchanging.[/quote]how do you explain the difference in morality expressed in the OT and the NT.

Again this is you are justifying the Nazi apocalypse based on your own perceptions and it looks nothing like what I am talking about.

OK.

Enigma: ^^^ The fact that three people have three (maybe even different) perceptions of a thing does not mean that the thing itself is three.

Definitely. But what points out the same being among the three??

[quote author=Mr_Anony]At this point, perhaps you would do well to define exactly what you mean by "useful to us"[/quote]Benefit.

Enigma: ^^ He has been specific to the so-called "Abrahamic" religions. And his point is accurate as a matter of fact.

Given that the first religion (Judaism), is an influence and victim of plagarism to the subsequent religions. However the personalities of three Gods: is so unique and different that it brightly delineates them as different Gods.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Genocide, slavery, killing of "innocent" children are wrong, but in the case of the bible, they are a punishment for sin so they are justified.

For instance, hanging a man until he is dead is wrong but in the case of punishing a criminal, it is justified.

If God is supreme judge and the wages of sin is death according to His law then He is justified in punishing sin by death. The executioner in the person of the man who did the actual killing is absolved of murder.

If the same executioner kills another man when the judge has not sanctioned it, then it is extra-judicial killing which is murder

God as supreme judge would have been wrong if He was partial but the bible shows that the israelites were also killed and enslaved when they committed sin so again, God in this case is justified.[/quote]The problem with your objective moral content. If God changes his mind, then the moral content changes to the extent of absurdity whereby a moral decree changes 180 degrees.

I do think you are trying to say to immoral acts can be moral by justification. Therefore the Nazi apocalypse of trimming down populations to create living space is moral!!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You are misreading me completely, please read thru our debate again. Imagine you were God for a moment and three different people who claim to know you describe you in three different ways, Three of them cannot possibly be right. It is either one is telling the truth or all three are lying.
The same God in the sense that they all know your name is emofine and you are female, contradictions as to whether you are fair or dark skinned and whether you prefer rice to beans and vice versa.
As a Christian, I am convinced that God made himself clear in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the perfect example of a good person according to God's standards. No one disputes this. Irrespective of whether we agree on Christ's divinity or not, we all agree -at least to the best of my knowledge- that Christ is sinless. As a result I base my life on the life of Christ which to me is the perfect example of a moral person.[/quote]Whether all the deities worshipped in all religions are one God, is a very different question. The fact they are all called God, doesn't mean they are the same person.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You are still looking at God's law through a man-centered lens i.e. "for anything to be good, it must make me happy" This is not reality. Wellbeing to the best of my knowledge is subjective to each person i.e. what makes each person happy may differ. The function of morality is not to submit to a person's "happiness" but to guide people to right behaviour.


Actually, not so - at least to the best of my knowledge - They are functionally the same by description and actions. However I can really dwell so much on this because I am not well versed in all the three. Please refer to the 7 conditions I gave earlier in the thread. If any God matches this description, then such a God would be judge.[/quote]What is right?! Isn't it still morals?! If so, is being right useful to us??

@OP

Is God bound by Logic?

The name God is the only similarity btw the MAJOR characters of all religions.