₦airaland Forum

eph12:
If you read the op well he said 'sudden implementation' not that the tsa is a bad policy.

We have a fragile economy and the people in charge should know that.

It's dangerous to think that every action must be met or settled with force.

When the opportunity present itself? Just like when people say if it's God's will? So what happened to creating that opportunity?

Thankfully TSA isn't a policy but how can a quick and sudden implementation of a good thing be bad?

Be realistic the fight with ND insurgents would only be suspended. Negotiating with insurgents borrows them a clout of legitimacy.

ItzChinnex:
igbos are Africa's greatest Tribe.
if you believe me, Hit like
if not hit Share

How many tribes did you consider before making this judgment?

eph12:
What led to the activities of the NDA? What happened to restructuring? What happened to careful and thoughtful policies? What happened to resource control? What happened to not scaring investors away leading to loss of jobs?

The aim of TSA was to prevent corruption and misappropriation of public funds. It is clearly an ethical and anti criminal measure. Nigerian banks interested in leverage can approach the Central bank for such funds which is a more accountable alternative.

Secondly the NDA is a criminal organization and on the same pedestal with Boko Haram. None of their actions can be justified. The prior governments' policy of paying off insurgents with pipeline protection contracts was reckless. And that vulnerability then contributes to the present vulnerability now.

To be sincere an economy of 150 million people buying and selling can hardly be controlled by one man. It's the same Nigerians that would diversify when the opportunity presents itself. It's the same Nigerians that would buy and sell Nigerian products which would boost the economy.

The real blame should lie on our corrupt political elite

KingEbukasBlog:
I can't think of any shared attributes for those mythical gods with the Supreme Being . But in Christianity , the bible says we humans are gods and we are created in God's image , so obvious there are lots of shared attributes .

But I thought we agreed to discuss this from deism's perspective ?

Then it is either they are Gods or not. From what you have said they are not Gods because they are mythical right?

KingEbukasBlog:
God is a supreme being , gods are the lesser ones - they are the ones who have ranks and control some aspects of nature .

There is no such thing as "Gods" , its called gods . There is only one Supreme Being , God .

Good now what's common between God and gods? in other words what is common denominator between those two?

KingEbukasBlog:
We are digressing dear . You asked for a definition for God , I gave you a generally accepted one . Let's stay on track so progress can be made.

But the definition was clearly not adequate. We have to agree on who and who the term God can cover. I strongly believe pagans have Gods whom are allocated accordingly to a hierarchy therefore not all are supreme nor creators

KingEbukasBlog:
There is no complete disagreement . God is seen as the Supreme Being by everyone , just that the deists reject religious concepts about Him - they see him as a non-interventionist .

I thought if pagans and Buddhists are regarded amongst those that consider God to mean a Supreme Being.

Also God is a disguised term for Yahweh.

KingEbukasBlog:
I tried to avoid discussing the religious concepts of God but you dragged me into it . Now what am I supposed say

Let's go with deism's perspective , so the arguments will be perspicuous . Please

Do you remember the story or parable of the five blind men who wanted to know what an elephant was? If you remember the parable, you would see God as the elephant and the blind men are the various religious and deist perspectives.

So before any proof can be made, a concrete definition of God must emerge

KingEbukasBlog:
No dear , the question should be who is a deity because God is a Supreme Being - its one person . You dig ?

But Hindus say Krishna is a God

KingEbukasBlog:
Nope . Angels share the same attribute and they are not gods .

Which is correct. So the question who is a God remains

KingEbukasBlog:
Since God made nature/universe , then he exists outside it . He couldn't have been in the universe and still be called its creator .

Do you agree with me that it's Yahweh's otherworldly attribute makes him a God?

KingEbukasBlog:
Because they see the observation of nature and reason as sufficient evidence for the existence of a single creator . If I should try to deal with the religious concept of God , it might lead to presenting a convoluted argument for God's existence .

But being a creator doesn't make one a God. For example human inventors are not regarded as Gods despite their creations. Similarly Yahweh is not God because he is a Creator but because he is from outside the Universe

KingEbukasBlog:
See it from deism's perspective , what do you think ?

Why should the deist's narrow perspective be exclusive?

KingEbukasBlog:
Good observation .

God is an eternal supernatural being , the ultimate One , the source of all things that exist . God is the creator of the universe .

So what's the problem here ?

That's if you ignore the other Gods that people genuinely believe in. And besides there has to be a common thread binding all these Gods and its not their ultimate unity or unchanging eternity

KingEbukasBlog:
There are cultures that see animals , trees , even stones as gods .

Ok lemme be clear , when I say God , what comes to your mind ?

Most cultures believe that the animation behind animals the trees and stones is what deserves worship. There is always that otherworldly element in Gods. For example most people think pagans worship idols but they worship the spirit through the idols qua representations of the spirit.

So whenever God is mentioned i think an otherworldly concept

KingEbukasBlog:
Before I show you , give it a try , who do you think God is ? I want to know what comes to your mind when religious people say "God"

To me, God is a special appellation granted to beings without an earthly origin. In other words it is an otherworldly being. My proof for this reasoning is all the Gods described by the various cultures in the world. The common thread amongst them all is that they are otherworldly.

KingEbukasBlog:
My acceptance of God's existence was well thought out on my part



Faith has no limits so I'm not sure what you challenged .



Why do you have a problem with that ?



But supernatural causes gave rise to natural causes .

Are you okay with the definition of God I gave ?

Where is the definition of God you provided?

naijadeyhia:
Stop giving falso testimony. I was never corrected because none of you could convincingly defend it plus I chose to be quiet since nobody could say anything meaningful. So stop getting ahead of yourself.

Here we have someone who keeps pushing forward images and making fallacious statementd in defence of evolution which is a clear indicator that he has a certain depth of knowledge about it to be in defense of it so what stops him from showing me just how deep this knowledge is to make him an advocate of it.

Besides I am too laid back today to be mentioned by you so pls do not mention me again...let me enjoy my saturday.

How you think Science works?

Do you mean to say a Universe or any other material cause within a dimension without causality, is necessarily uncaused?

KingEbukasBlog:
You didn't answer this question

You are trying to evade this question . And a creator here means a supernatural being who is conscious, intelligent , powerful - see it from deism's perspective .

My atheistic stance was well thought on my part. I considered the efficacy of faith and challenged its limits. The Gods most theists presented were metaphysical distant for a credible claim. Also I am aware of the limits of human reason, yet natural causes should enjoy a higher priority over supernatural causes.

KingEbukasBlog:
You evaded my question dear .

I dutifully answered all your questions even when they were directionless.

Before we can begin to endlessly argue about the existence of God, it's best we lay the foundation. And answer the question who is God

KingEbukasBlog:
Because its impossible . The universe has a cause and a beginning . Or was your question hypothetical ?

Yes it was a hypothetical.

Kay17:
If you followed the trail of back and forth messages carefully, you would find that you made an argument that God was uncaused because he was within a dimension that lacked causality. I went a step further and asked if entities like a Universe or multiverse in a dimension without causality would be uncaused as well

KingEbukasBlog:
I answered it , "no" was my answer

How does no answer the question?

KingEbukasBlog:
Then words like "irrelevant" , "unnecessary " should not exist

....

You haven't still answered the question

KingEbukasBlog:
But hold on , an atheist still believes there is no creator - this is a tentative conclusion which has to be questioned thoroughly . And you seem comfortable with an ignorant stance - or else you are omniscient . Why ?

But the question "who is God" remains.

KingEbukasBlog:
1. Not really . Because I can fully describe a fictional character like Harry Potter does not mean he existed or I'm close to proving his existence . See ?



2 Calling you just a skeptic is a misnomer , a religious skeptic is appropriate .

That's why I follow you , to observe and remind you in case you forget

1. I absolutely agree.

2. ok

KingEbukasBlog:
Let me get this straight dear , did you ask the question "who is God" from a tabula rasa as an atheist or your lack of understanding of who God is made you ask the question after which the absence of a satisfactory answer led you to atheism ?

The latter

KingEbukasBlog:
Alright .


1. Do you agree that you are no skeptic since your position is incongruous with the definition ?

2. Do you think having a definition for God is a huge step towards providing proof for His existence ?

2. That is painful obvious and self evident. It is like searching for a black cat that's not in a dark room

1. By skeptic,i left it to mean an opponent or a critic of religions

KingEbukasBlog:
Let me get this straight dear , did you ask the question "who is God" from a tabula rasa as an atheist or your lack of understanding of who God is made you ask the question after which the absence of a satisfactory answer led you to atheism ?

The latter

KingEbukasBlog:
You are missing the point dear . I want to dispel your misconception , God is the one interesting in your soul not me . According to the dictionary , a skeptic is a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

If you claim to question God's existence then you should be an agnostic - that ambivalence leaves you vacillating between which proposition is true or false or what is factual .

Atheism is the belief God does not exist while agnosticism is the lack of belief in the existence or non existence of God .

For a skeptic , agnosticism is the rational stance on the existence of God no atheism



Why do you think the bible is special to us ?

Your dictionary meaning is on point. I thought i should be an agnostic considering the fact atheists couldn't disprove the existence of God especially when negatives are impossible to disprove. But Doubt came along and asked me "who is God?"

But the problem arose how I prove what I can not define and how could i define what i cannot prove. You might be able to solve that conundrum

KingEbukasBlog:
No . Why do you think this question is important ?

The same way all questions on Nairaland are important

KingEbukasBlog:
A skeptic also questions the belief in the non existence of a creator . Why are you not doing that ?



Why do you think bibles are special ?

1. You might change my mind again.

2. They are not special to me