₦airaland Forum

I ve mentioned this somewhere on this forum but I ll repeat myself.

Tracing God to the design of the universe is a fallacy of affirming a consequence. Its goes like this; when Adam smokes, he coughs. Adam smokes, as a result he coughs. That's the right application. Adam coughs, thus he smokes, is affirming the consequence which is not necessarily true.

Same with "If God creates, a design results" there is a design, thus there is God, is the classic example used by most theists.

There are lots of issues to consider

Order can't be got from chaos?? Imagine a solar system with 20 planets with interfering orbits, and eventually as a result of numerous collisions, two planets emerge with perfect non interfering orbits. There has to be conflict in every chaos, the essence of conflict is to dissolve chaos.

In relation to Nature, what use is a mobile phone?? A mobile phone's purpose is entirely limited to man, so why would Nature produce an object which is not in harmony with it?? Lightning, the Ocean, mountains sychronize with Nature and have a continued relevance. But leave a phone or laptop or car for a long time, it disintegrates and breaks down to more basic parts or sand and oil.

I'm aware of the uncreated cause, and a first principle of all things being the effects of causes HOWEVER  apart from the arbitrary need to avoid an ad infinitum, what quality does the cause have that precludes it from being an effect of another cause. If not, the first principle will hold.

Besides if the Cause (God) creates the universe, from what material would the universe spring from? Nothing?? Except if God creates from himself.

My last point, if you insist there is a primordial intelligent Cause, the Nature can't exist by implication. Thus you would have no example or idea of how Nature works

Old argument with a longer headline,

I think you would need to define Nature and draw the extent of its power.

Also explain the diemma of nothing coming out of nothing and all Creation starting from point zero. (Assuming all things are preceded by nothing)

^^ more intimidation and threats that don't smell real. Provide sound and compelling arguments and you would definitely have an audience.

Bad image for Islam

I think the Devil comes to represent values which Christianity despise, such as freedom/freewill, self definition and disobedience to authority. Christianity on the other hand seeks for total and unquestioned submission to authority (in form God). The individual vs society. Morality is subjective to both parties.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

This should be helpful. The Ottoman empire by necessity as a result of its size to devolve power to regional authorities and laws, however provide a substantial examples of other Islamic states who practised a similar brand of Sharia.

If Islamic laws don't recognise atheists, then it can neither recognise their acts. . .

Islamic invaders of India have had an horrible humanitarian recordn shown religious intolerance and the degrading of Hindus by reducing them to kaffirs. Forcing them to pay jizah taxes which are aimed at improvishing the population.

Probably its high time the authority of the Bible is to questioned like Progressive Christianity already does.

So an atheist or buddhist or Hindu or homosexual can't contract or marry or depose a will?? Why is that?? That's unacceptable by today's standards

Sometimes I'm tempted to believe you are blind or just love repetitions

I ve always said evil is characteristic of man's awesome intellectual abilities which are boundless and is being cut short by natural opposition. The full realization of that power is impossible as a result. Design is misaligned with the purpose. I ve being clear enough!!

The Ottoman empire didn't tolerate animsim or atheism. Just christianity and Judaism, but this didn't seem to be a direct consequence of Sharia but of State policY and its wasn't an individual right but awarded to a community, At a point homosexuality was decriminalized.

^^^ I asked if God had a design!!

I do think there is evil. My view of evil is a conflict btw design and purpose.

^^ you being dishonest by suggesting Islam is a united house, there are too many divisions within it with widely different thoughts. Boko haram, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda are examples of doctrines that believe all humans must be under God's rule.

@Ola

You are really delusional, cos you claim morality is universal, but turn to say its not and its unexpressed in the mind of everyone. How you got to know that, I don't know.

Does God have any design??

@Ola you have stop your fallacious agruments. Immaterial properties are still physical since they are basically perceptible to our senses. If you insist there is a spirit world, then fully describe but it must be substantial different from the physical otherwise, its still physical.

Why are there islamic states with Sharia imposed on Sharia imposed on nonmuslims, with blaspemy laws and apostacy?

Are the human rights known today in islamic states or quran??

Fire is entirely physical.

High-powered TV??! There is energy in spiritual world?? And gravity too??

Evangelical research?? Counting rubbish!! The guy's imagination is poor. There is no a spiritual realty. All he described is still physical, light, appearance, touch. TVs are now used in heaven?! Before it was paper and why do heavenly forces keep using man's inventions??

^^ Ultimately different Gods.

Since Jesus from the tesitimonies of the Gospel writers, declared he is the Light, then from the Islamic view, he is a heretic! But that's Christian Jesus. Muslim Jesus might have bEen different.

My problem with Islam is its too divided, the hadiths, restrictions on free speech through blasphemy and imposition of Sharia via Islamic states.

Of course all Nigeria's problems would be heaped on the North, the region has the worst degree of poverty and ignorance in the country, they are still affected by strange and supposedly extinct diseases. its not like the oil funds reach there.

All the money goes greed politicans in all the regions, our ethnic differences are superficial.

Ppl should be made aware that its not all our problems that would be solved by SNC, boko haram wouldn't recognize newly drawn borders. For other parts other than Niger Delta, funds will become an issue, security and further fragmentation would also be a concern.

Our bargaining power in the international arena will be greatly reduced. The role SNC will perform is to preside over the funeral of Nigeria. And where will the legal basis for SNC come from? No government has the power to call up such a body with sovereign powers, the Constitution sees itself as the sovereign will of the ppl and it contains no provisions for a SNC.

I am not being ambiguous. I pointed out desires that are universally agreed upon as moral. You OTOH are obfuscating my arguments by requiring me to be very specific when I don't need to.

Crack cocaine and tobacco, alchol induce happiness.

^^^

Sad. *sigh*

Deep Sight:
Truth strikes a chord. Whether we like it or not: the explanation that the universe lacks an over-arching purpose and that random and meaningless permutations of unicellular organisms emerging purposelessly from a pre-biotic soup account fully for our existence will NEVER EVER resonate satisfactorily with a conscious, sentient, intelligent being with feelings and abstract ideas and goals. It's quite simply empty, to such a being, and does not speak to his inner nature which he is very alive to.

No, you placed man's emotional burden above the search of truth. A purposeless existence gives life the opportunity to be self defined rather than being treated as a mere utility which is not beyond its market value.

I think its sad to classify objects not visible to the eye as non physcial

Telling a human being that he exists because a prebiotic soup somehow contrived a unicellular organism will eternally remain a deeply unsatisfying answer for most human beings because they have a sense of meaningfulness that such a bald explanation can NEVER meet.

I didn't know self satisfaction was a criteria for truth and that there is an inner unquestionable truth which other purported truths are to be measured with.

The argument for intelligent designer must settle nature as an alternate designer is inadequate. By striking nature, one would purport God acts through what we once thought were "natural processes" and at end would have to conclude that there is no such thing as nature. And deny understanding natural works.

Everyone would agree that it's idyllic we work towards the well-being of all, too find love, joy, peace and happiness, and everyone deems it necessary to know what's true and what's not. Most people generally agree with the Golden Rule. These are a basis from which we can infer that there are moral absolutes.

Hmmm. Joy, happiness, generally pleasure; are not rules but desires. And you didn't state whose desires, whether society or the state or an individual. You didn't mention what extent of happiness/pleasure they aim for and what type of rules that guide them to it. You were too ambigious.

The immaterial is what gives the material meaning. One can be without thinking, unfortunately that means such a person is dead

Like thinking yes.

I can't prove God any less than I can prove abstracts such as mind or love but God's existence can be inferred from the teleology we see in living things. Here is a nice 'Atheist's Riddle' that puts it succintly

All codes we know of are designed
The sequence of nucleobases in the DNA is a code
We have 100% inference that the DNA is designed and 0% inference that it isn't

Now don't jump around this by simply asserting that evolution is responsible for making the DNA because there's no inferential basis for this. To falsify my deduction above you'll need to point to a naturally-occurring coded system. See here for more. Note that, I altered the riddle, but the point is the same.

This a fallacy of affirming a consequence. It goes like this "if Ade smokes weed then he would cough, so Ade smokes weed, then he coughs. That's the right way. "Ade coughs, then he is smoking weed" then this affirming the consequence. Because that statement is not necessarily true.

In your case, "If God created universe, there would be a design", God creates the universe and consequently there is design. But affirming the consequence would be "there is a design, thus there is God." This result is an abuse of logic.

t is not enough to state complacency as to the act. The object of this thread is to explore the morality of necrophilia and whether irrefutable reasons can be put forth to that effect. From your statement I infer that you take necrophilia to be moral insofar as the practice isn't too widespread to present a danger to the human species. Note that by this reasoning, the Holocaust and Khmer Rouge massacres are much justified

Remember morality is not what ought to be but what is, Looking at past morality especially in the quran and the bible these acts where there. Discriminating against twins was morality.

Evidence is coming to light, that the Quran was after all not written in Muhammed's time not to speak of revealed. The obvious similarity with the bible and SyroChristian texts prove the quran was a product of man. The oldest quranic text is over 100 after Muhammed's time and his biographer Ibn Ishaq wrote on him 100 years after his death.

Lagos shia has been lying all along,

God created human beings in His own image and so has the right to set the rules for our behaviour.  He is the Law giver and has given us the Moral Law which is in consonance with our conscience.  Why do you think we all need to love and to be loved? even though we try to fill that gap with alternatives which does not satisfy?  If laws of morality are just the adopted social customs in a particular time and place, then why was Adolf Hitler wrong?

Where are the examples?? If you had provuded them I would ve agreed there was a universal law giver, but since you are unable to do, I would assume there is no universal code, thus no universal law giver.

They are called intellectual schizophrenics. Though they believe in God they are believing that they don't believe in God.  It is a form of self deception where they try to convince themselves of what they want to believe (James 1:22

Its like you ve struck out atheism from the dictionary. However, if God doesn't exist there would be "intellectual schizophrenics"

This statement of yours is not rationally sound because it begs the question.  An all powerful God as described in the Scriptures would be capable of doing miracles.  The fact that you assume that miracles are impossible you have already dismissed the possibility that the Bible is true.  This is not a logical objection but a mere opinion that is not backed with evidence

So myths can be rationalized in that sense, at least they involve supernatural beings doing their bit.

According to your evolutionary worldview everything must be materialistic.  How does the material brain have access to the immaterial laws? and why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws?  Why do we all believe (even though you say you don't have faith) laws of logic will be the same tomorrow as they are today, since we are not beyond time and have not experienced the future?

Marx says "I am thus I think" meaning the immaterial has order and makes sense with a material basis.

Also prove God exists and that the bible had a constant moral code.