₦airaland Forum

MrAnony1:
Can everything in reality be proven by empirical evidence?

If detectable by our senses, yes.

MrAnony1:
The same way reality is perceived. Uyi provides some good examples in his OP

Hence you can subject God to be proven by empirical evidence?!

MrAnony1:
I see. So you insist on using a wrong definition of the term.



No you haven't tried. I have nothing to prove. I have already done the best I can for you which is to point you to the correct meaning of the terms. If you insist on defining it wrongly and then expecting me to "disprove" your wrong definition then I really can't help you.

You are welcome to have the last word.

OO.KK I agree.

Back to the original question, how is God perceived?

Orunto:
NO!!! athiests are insane animals. They do not have Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding of good character. God is good and Christ is Character. The Bible, the main Instruction of God instructs Believers not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, athiests to be precise.

But the Christians are yet to show these qualities.

MrAnony1:
Absolute imperceptibility

Because I have already justified with the limitation of our senses. But you don't seem satisfied solely because the dictionary meaning of ultimate reality does not include imperceptibility.

Don't try to shift your burden of proof. You are the one claiming that the true nature of things (ultimate reality) is necessarily imperceptible to us. How do you know this?

Haven't I tried?! Since you don't find my arguments convincing, you can as well prove otherwise.

MrAnony1:
You are confusing many things my friend. Let me see if I can help you

1. The ultimate reality by definition is the absolute nature of all things i.e. things as they really are.

2. It may or may not be an alternate reality.

3. There is nothing is it's definition that suggests that it cannot be known with our senses.

The fallacy you are committing with your argument is petito principe. You have assumed that the ultimate reality has certain properties in order to argue that it has same assumed properties. Circular reasoning.

Properties like??

If you think it is easily perceivable how do you perceive it?

MrAnony1:
Good. So you admit that detecting other realities is not an impossibility.


No you haven't. You are still merely assuming that the ultimate reality is impossible to perceive. This is odd seeing that it contradicts your previous assertion above which is that it is not impossible to detect other realities with the same senses.


No they don't. Experiencing an illusion does not prove that you cannot experience reality.

With the obvious exception of the ultimate reality. Virtual reality for example is rooted in our reality hence we can perceive it, but the ultimate reality if it exists is not rooted is ours because ours will be subsumed in it. Yet both are alternate realities. Ours is an alternate reality as well. Again, I repeat, our senses are founded, rooted and justified within our reality hence we cannot reach out beyond it. Even if we did, we will doubt it.

MrAnony1:
Neither does it mean that you cannot detect all other alternate realities.


You haven't given any sufficient reason to justify this claim. How do you know that it is impossible to detect the ultimate reality with your senses when you have clearly shown that it is not impossible to detect other realities with your senses?


A mirage is by definition an illusion and hence is unlike anything that can be classified as a reality.

Yes it does not mean I cannot detect other alternate realities. It can go either ways.

I believe i have already answered why the ultimate reality is unreachable and impossible to access by our senses, mainly because our senses are rooted and justified in our reality. And mirages further prove this point. Mirages although defined as illusions are still experiences which our senses are subjected to.

MrAnony1:
I get what you are saying, but this doesn't necessarily make the ultimate reality beyond our perception just like how we can perceive both virtual reality and our physical reality.

Notice that you are now doubting the very reality you experience in order to help you doubt God. Hence confirming what I said earlier:

"The fact of God is as obvious as reality itself...."

https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/6#34509734

The fact I can detect a virtual reality as an alternate reality does not mean I can detect all other alternate realities. Note that my discussions on alternate realities are speculative. If there is an ultimate reality different from our immediate reality, it is impossible to detect such with our senses because the justification for our senses is grounded in this reality. Therefore if I see a mirage, it is likely a fantasy rather than a separate reality.

DeepSight:
It is not said that God is passing from one state to another, but that God's emissions are.
The Universe is not here said to be a piece of God, but a consequence of God.
This is no more than your breath is a consequence of you - and not a piece of you. In reality it is just a consequence of your body and its connection to life, but no matter.
The analogy of the Yugas simply shows the universe to be perhaps a consequence of the contant "breath" (if you like) of God. This does not mean that the nature of God changes.
In this, please also bear in mind a very core argument I made here once:
Someone contended that since change is constant, then God must change, i.e - be mutable.
I responded stating that if the fact that change is constant never changes, then what do you say? Do you get that?
If something is eternally subject to change and change is its core nature - then its nature as something that always changes never changes. That nature is immutable.
Nevertheless that was a simple revert to show that argument as not thorough enough.
In simple terms, the beating of a heart does not thereby change the essential nature of a heart - especially if like God - the beating heart is taken to beat eternally.
Every beat would be a moment of change to its external environment without changing the core nature of the heart.
Is this clear to you?
And in all of this you must yet bear at the back of your mind that which I said about the universe not being a direct creation of God.
I see little to contradict in the above and it does not detract from that which I am saying.
No actually: I only make reference to it to discuss with the materialist. Everyone should know anyway, as Anony has said, that the nature of reality is metaphysical.
In truth, the entire universe and material world that you see is nothing but a sort of holographic projection - a temporary illusion into which we are projected and from which we are extracted at death.
That is the real truth, but I see that you are not ready to take the discussion that far, so let us continue for now where we are.
Besides, the word "transcendent" has a dictionary definition which should suffice for this purpose.

For clarity, can there be parts of God despite He is a singularity?

DeepSight:
Thank you for your comments.

May I ask exactly how such a thing would contradict the unchanging quality of God?

Would such a thing for example change God's eternity, self-existence, transcendence? Not at all sir - you can see that that does not follow. Indeed it does not follow anymore than you breathing in and breathing out changes the quality or nature of your being.

But you said the quality of self-existence is due to the immutability and unchanging nature of God, therefore if God passes from one state to another, God is in a flux as a result and he can not be said to be self-existent. The emergence of the Universe as a piece of God is a flux. Breathing in and out is an example of change/motion (which technically could change who I am, from living to dead. But that aside)

Let us stick with the analogy above to answer this question: it would be the same way a single breath from lungs is not of the same nature as the lungs itself. It would be the same way that single breath does not transcend either itself or the being that exudes it.

To use another analogy to help - it would be the same way Light from the Sun is not necessarily the fullness of the body of the sun itself. And in this same way, even if Light rays may move or be emitted away from the sun, this does not mean that the sun has changed in essential nature or substance. This is a mere analogy.

I will try employing your analogy as an explanatory device. Light emanating from the Sun does not carry the Sun with it, but contains heat which it carries from the Sun, The heat is like a marker and an inheritance from the Sun. That is the kind of substance I'm talking about. Comparing the Universe to God, they are at opposing poles of reality like light and darkness.

However, aside from the two analogies above, the simple answer to your question is that the universe is not known to be something outside of itself or beyond itself, and we thus cannot call it transcendental. The idea that something beyond the universe caused the universe informs our reference to that cause as transcendental.

You have turned the Universe into the reference point and lens through everything is defined. Transcendence ought not be defined in reference to the Universe, rather to itself.

AllNaijaBlogger:
It all boils down to accepting or rejecting the assumption that there is something bigger than the universe.....and that something is a being.

I can. Provided it is not mere abstract speculation.

DeepSight:
Thank you. Let me try to build on this a little, since the Atheists here will offer nothing sensible in return.

That above is fair enough logic which should be simple to see. However many may still have somewhat fair objections to it.

In simple terms what I prefer to say is that at all events -

~ Something exists

~ Something cannot come from nothing

~ For anything to exist therefore, something or the other always existed

~ Therefore something or the other must be self-existent

~ The choices would be between a self existent transcendent and a self existent universe

~ The universe does not have self existent properties/ In the past I have explained that self existent properties must of necessity include -

* Intangibility

* Immutability

* Eternal in the past

* Immanent properties of existence

~ The Universe is therefore not a self existent thing: indeed, by this test - no matter at all can be self existent

~ The logic thus presents us with an inescapable conclusion in favour of a self existent transcendent, intangible eternal element: which element is what God is so called.

Now the 2nd premise above is something that a lot of atheists (and scientists - via quantum physics) have attempted to disprove - namely to show that indeed something may even pop out of absolute nothingness. Some have gone so far as to ascribe properties and quantities to nothingness, which is of course nonsense on a philosophical level of existentialist discourse, however they may pretend it to be otherwise in any other sense. All of these psuedo scientific attempts to rubbish the second premise above have squarely fallen flat and shown the discussants to be embarrassingly ignorant of their own sciences or even arguments.

The 5th and 6th premises above are also argued against but they stand firm. The 6th premise in particular is sometimes argued against in terms of the permanence of change, the multiverse theory, cyclical universes and the like. None of these may be wrong, but the persons who so discuss along that line always fail to grasp the simple reasoning behind the properties of a self existent thing which I listed following the 6th premise. I have discussed those properties at length on this forum. No self existent thing can be matter.

Mr Deepsight,

If you could remember that since nothing could not have brought forth the Universe, then the Universe must have come forth from this Something -- God. Doesn't that contradict the unchanging quality of God?

Also, why is the Universe of a different even contradicting character from God. Why isn't the Universe transcendental as well.

MrAnony1:
1. Your reality (if it is indeed real) is part of the ultimate reality and not something other than it.

2. You are confusing ultimate reality with alternate reality, they don't mean the same thing.

3. Alternate realities like your dream reality and computer generated virtual realities are just as perceivable as your physical reality. So what makes you think that the ultimate reality/an alternate reality is necessarily beyond perception?

Between our reality and the ultimate reality is a chasm of illusion. We could find out at the end of the day that our reality was just an illusion. Hence the ultimate reality is still an alternate reality even though our own reality is rooted in it. Just as virtual realities despite being rooted in our reality are alternate. Do you get it?

Why is the ultimate reality necessarily beyond perception. Because our senses, empirical devices and reason cannot be justified by any other foundation other than themselves. 'How am I sure I see a stone or a building' there is just no way our senses can penetrate beyond our reality even if there is an ultimate reality.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Therein lies the difference between the atheist and the theist. You see the universe as eternal while I see God as separate from the universe and eternal.

Why is God eternal?

Think about it. The universe had to come from somewhere. Something predates it. But to avoid going into an infinite regress of predating the universe, we have to come to a point where there is something that nothing predates. That point is God.

I do not actually think the Universe had always existed and will always be here forever. Because I cannot substantiate it and it can only be a floating assumption. But that aside.

The immediate cause of the Universe is a question of fact and can only be satisfied with empirical evidence. The infinite regress which is the cornerstone of your argument, is an example of stretching reason beyond its limits. And it can be used to achieve an absurd conclusion that the Universe or even our Solar System are eternal.

For example:

Assuming we cannot see beyond our solar system, your crowd (theists) could say the solar system requires a cause since it is not eternal, therefore due to infinite regress God is the immediate cause of the Solar System.

The use of Infinite Regress might give us a faint idea about an ultimate cause probably. Who knows. Again infinite regress undermines our assumptions on the question of Being. Is our idea of a non eternal Universe due to our empirical observations or philosophical conception of Being? If our idea of the Universe is a philosophical conception of Being, then we are suggesting that Being in itself is a temporary notion and that extends to God.

AllNaijaBlogger:
I understand you. Yes, some christians twist things to make christianity more "scientific".

However, belief in God is also logical.

Life comes from life. That much we know. That original life is God.

Now, you would ask "who gave God life".

The answer is simple. God is eternal. If we are to believe that existence in the future will be eternal (there will always be something, even a remnant of the universe in the future), we should also believe that there is an eternal being.

This is what I believe

Can you substantiate "God is eternal", because I can easily say the multiverse or the Universe is eternal.

TV01:
Yes - and how timely a question - men are seriously underpaid relative to women in Tennis . That is not even customary discrimination, as it has no greater purpose. It's "spiteful" discrimination.


TV

Ok. I'm done with this thread

TV01:
Yes, I also said this;




Of course no one is fighting cutomary discrimination where it adversely affects men !

TV

So there is unequal pay to the disadvantage of men??

TV01:
Not Nigerian feminists - they love kids and marriage die Our two feminist stalwarts here were both engaged before 20 !

There is no structural or institutionalised pay disparity.


TV

Didn't you just say this

TV01: The whole notion of forced equality is not even the real discussion here. In fact, I feel employment, wages, etc. largely reflect male/female choices and some forms of customary discrimination are actually a good thing.

As Coogar has pointed out for the STEM courses, it's instructive to note the case in medicine. About 60% of female Dr's in the UK leave the profession within 10 years

TV01:
I'm not parsing Coogars points, I'm parsing yours - which I find to be all ideologically driven but not grounded in reality. Patriarchy is normal - it's what women want! Men are mean tto lead and dominate, there may be a few exceptiosn, but overall, we flourish best that way.


TV

@bolded, how do you know that? The feminists clearly show they don't. Do you still think there is no unequal pay in the labour market in Nigeria?

What does cowardice have to do with esoteric religious beliefs?! The insults are unnecessary. If you can not stand your ground then leave the thread.

bukatyne:
Take it cool, this is a discussion

The article I read certainly doesn't lend credence to your position



Women incapable of

If women acquire their post graduate degrees, they will definitely be promoted.

I am a feminist and I will cry out if a woman is promoted to the same position as a man without paying her dues



My boss with about 7 years experience more than I do earns about 6times my salary....

Is it wage gap? Should I be worried?

And my boss is a woman

P.S.: I do not even believe and encourage quota system.

What article did you look at?

coogar:
feminists are trying to eat their cake & have it. if women aren't as productive as men, why force gender equality down the throats of women? women would always be hampered by family issues - men don't get pregnant so there's a disconnect biologically.

You must really anti marriage feminists good.

and yours too......
the attention babies got from their mothers is different to what kids of 10 years got from the mothers. women generally lose interest when the going gets tough.

in other words, you are the inferior gender.

Thankss!

TV01:
There is all sorts of wrong with this statement;

1. It women who want babies most - not men
2. Women can combine both satisfactorily - even if some sacrifice is required
3. Marriage is not a farce - on the contrary, it's the basal building block of harmonious and flourishing societies
4. Yes, I suppose some women could live fulfilling lives without marriage. Some. Refer to point 1.
5. Per #4, why would those lives not be even more fulfilled with marriage?

The only categorical distinction in humans is male/female. Not black/white, straight/gay, or any other. The whole biological difference, functioning and purpose is geared towards child-rearing - not fulfilling careers.

I don't deny a form of fulfilment from a career, but it should not be considered a substitute or alternative to a family. And certainly not as worthy, moral or courageous

Most Western industrialised countries are facing a ticking demographic time-bomb due to falling fertility. They are simply not breding at replacement rates (approx 2.2 babies p/w). Japan and Germany are particularly bad - where's carefreewannabe for her daily diss !

Society can't just be about women, neither can it be ordered solely on a notion of equality.


In the UK that conversation is shut-down everytime. No one even has the liver. Wetin e talk?


TV

You do not agree with Coogar on most of his points then?

coogar:
yes!
if it's for a greater good - saving lives. such women are heroes!

That is what feminists are trying to do. You have finally understood a woman's mind. Congratulations! Pat yourself.

yes......they do!
they leave the rest in the hands of ekaettes & akpans.

Like your mother did. Loool!

coogar:
women can marry & decide not to have kids. marriage isn't the limitation, raising kids seem to be the problem. i also suspect it's deeper than marriage & children - women just generally lose interest at anything once they have stayed in it for 10+ years.

But you would admire such women and praise their bravery, right?

After 10 years, do women lose interest in raising their children? Raising children is still an activity as understood in our dictionaries.

TV01:
I don't believe there is institutionalised gender pay disparity in Nigeria. Even moreso, in the West. There may be vestigial bad practice here and there, but even that likely cuts both ways to some degree.

It's mostly about choices, ability and ethic. And if anything, trying to force equality is producing poorer overall outcomes, as I noted in my previous post.

Some forms of customary discrimination made sense and would still be understandable for the overall good. Although I'm not calling for it's re-introduction, or am even certain we could roll back the tide.


TV

This is a classic example of eating your cake and having it. How are you able to deny a fact and at the same time justify it! It is a remarkable talent! The bolded will not make any sense except it justifies a difference. And the coloured is even worse! What is the customary discrimination if not for what feminists are crying against!!

coogar:
why are women incapable of acquiring post graduate degrees? is it by force to marry & get pregnant? women can very much achieve whatever they want to achieve - is the gender not equal again?



that was exactly what i told my GP the last time i visited. i told him the ratio of male to female admission in the medical schools should be a mandatory 2:1 in favour of the men. the women don't stay long in that profession and this is why there's always a shortage of doctors in the medical field!

Ok. Since that is the case, don't you think women who want to break that cycle of marry, get pregnant and rear babies; and have professionally fulfilling lives, are morally justified and courageous? Women should be taught well that marriages are farces and they would have more fulfilling lives without marriages, right?

TV01:
The whole notion of forced equality is not even the real discussion here. In fact, I feel employment, wages, etc. largely reflect male/female choices and some forms of customary discrimination are actually a good thing.

As Coogar has pointed out for the STEM courses, it's instructive to note the case in medicine. About 60% of female Dr's in the UK leave the profession within 10 years. Another large cohort opt for P/T work.

Outcome; serious backlogs in GP's surgeries and a resultant influx into A&E, causing real pressure. As more women will soon be admitted to medical school than men, it means added funding to train, what will be a smaller cadre of Dr's.

The rates of attrition mean that essentially, two women have to be trained to fill one slot? Raising problems with funding the training in addition to the reduced service delivery. PC means it can't even be discussed without howls of protest.

Why shouldn't men be given preference here? It's clear there is more to this than performance at the time of admission - 18'ish - when girls tend to be slightly ahead of boys (in terms of requirements and how they present).

Equality as a stand alone notion does not necessarily serve the best interest of the whole and shouldn't be zealously pursued without wider consideration.


TV

SO you agree there is unequal pay in Nigeria? Why then did you bother me to search for the evidence proving so?!

bukatyne:
Education: Do you expect a woman who has B. Sc. be placed in the same position as a man who has masters because of political correctness or equality? Flip it the other way: Would you like if a man with B.Sc. is placed in the same level with you (a Masters' holder) because he is a man?

Experience: Come on.... this 100% explains itself.

The article is trying to be sensational; let them sample two groups of men with different education and experience and see if they will be in the same wage level.

Bring on another article to justify the wage gap in Nigeria.

The three articles were not enough? How many do I have to produce? 20? 30? 50? 100? When will you be satisfied?!

But you believe since women are incapable of acquiring postgraduate degrees and incapable of accumulating experience they coincidentally fell in the disadvantaged group, right? At least you were one of those denying unequal pay exists, now you know it does BUT for good reasons?

Nonso23:
How does the above discredit cooger's, timbuktou's, damiso's, bukatyne's or the general opposition's stance.

All these points or most of them were brought up in their arguments.

All the links in each step prove there is gender inequality, not just that but also unequal pay. Whilst the denial crowd's argument is there is no unequal pay discrimination nor any other gender discrimination at the workplace. The links clearly disprove that. The ball is in your court.

Nonso23:
ABSTRACT

Although there are numerous publications on job satisfaction, there have been relatively
very little empirical data on the job satisfaction of male and female bank managers in
general and still less on the impact of salary differential on the job satisfaction of male and
female bank managers in Nigeria.

CONCLUSION

Overall, it can be deduced from this research work on gender gap and its implication on management practice in Nigeria Banking sector by comparing men and women bank managers, it found out women are satisfied with their job. This paints a bleak picture for the development of this rapidly developing nation because the management skills of both male and female professionals are necessary for the country to promote and maintain sustainable economic growth. The study found that female bank managers hold positive perceptions about their pay and promotion policies, which generates high job satisfaction, while their male counterparts hold favorable opinions about pay and promotion policies. The different perceptions of the sexes may stem primarily from the discrepancy in the salary levels of the genders. Education and experience contributed a great deal to the gender gap in Nigeria. Educational attainment seems to be an important
variable in determining the satisfaction with pay managers in the banking industry. One
may conclude that, as education levels increase, the levels of mobility satisfaction and job
satisfaction may also increase, because increases in education increase the amount of job
responsibility and income employees expect to receive. Considering that African women
are becoming leading and productive contributors to the economy, their access to all levels. Education, including higher education, will significantly determine a change in gender
inequality in the workforce. This access to education and the subsequent benefits to
women’s employment 84 and promotional opportunities will affect their attitudes in a
positive way and increase their level of job satisfaction.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION
In light of the findings in this research, these recommendations could be considered.
1) Management should ensure that female manager should be given upward mobility in
taking responsibility in there various departments. This will ensure better attitude
towards work from the female manager.
2) Male and female should be given the same remunerations in there position, so as to
increase the rate of effectiveness in the banking sector.
3) Management should break “the glass ceiling by paying both sexes comparable
benefit for comparable work responsibilities. This will increase satisfaction,
performance and productivity.
4) It is also in the best interest for management to retain and promote the qualified
employees, and should be based on merit and performance that will enhance
upward mobility in the female managers.
5) Management should ensure that performance evaluations are fair and bias-free, and
promotion based on merit and performance will perceive by workers fair and
equitable, to encourage better performance and lead to a greater degree of job
satisfaction and ultimately higher productivity.
6) The research find out that man has more advanced education degree than women.
It’s therefore recommended that management should encourage women to pursue
for advanced degree by offering scholarships, grant, work release programs, and to
the middle and top management position in the banking sector