₦airaland Forum

It is a daft article because it abdicates responsibility and makes a scapegoat out of one person. The country has been an oil binge for its entire existence and then you blame the withdrawal symptoms on one person! Ridiculous!

The truth is, all the levels of the Nigerian state are convulsing and the so called masses are responsible for the people that govern them even if autocratic.

Probably, corruption is a decline in faith of God or in Nigeria or in the State. Probably it is inevitable.

luluosas:
Can you give life? You definitely have no right to take the life you can't give.

Rights are strictly a legal term and have only a legal appeal. The real question is can you?

KoloOyinbo:
No more than the Atheist makes statements they cannot stand by?

Now EXACTLY WHICH STATEMENT can I NOT stand by.

Please quote it IF YOU CAN! (more sloppy thinking)

Who then is God?

KoloOyinbo:
What raging dispute?? To anyone with understanding there is no dispute. In the absence of prove you choose your preferred option which is as valid as the opposing view.

And again you try to be offensive by equating FAITH to a useless blindness. (Also without any support for your assertion)

As I say - you need to sharpen you analytical skills.

BUT isn't Faith a form of blindness?!

People like you and other theists making statements you can not stand by

Gaborone:
If I told you of 'unbelievable' testimonies people have shared in church, while holding 'before' and 'after' test results, you wouldn't believe, so, what's the point?

Whenever you fall ill, do you pray for healing without any resort to orthodox medicine?

Koloyinbo's argument summarised:

"I do not know nor have an idea of the God we are talking about but I'm sure of one thing -- nobody can prove nor dismiss him"

Gaborone:
Who says He doesn't?

There have been testimonies of limbs growing back during ministrations. They are called creative miracles. It's another realm of the gift of healing entirely.


If he can raise the dead, what is in a missing limb? I just feel though that it is not so common cos it requires a higher level of faith on the part of the amputee and/or Minister involved, which many dont have. I don't know how many of us will trust God enough to make a missing limb grow back in the twinkling of an eye.

But these miracles are conveniently hidden away from public eye. Besides there isnt the same level of scrutiny in amongst believers as against outsiders and secularists.

Whenever I see a 'spiritual power' build a bridge or pave a road, I will believe.

KoloOyinbo:
You statement uses the word IF thus making it questionable. But in any case you have simply MADE a statement without any rational support!

We believe you because you say so! (It doesn't work that way - you must construct an argument based on support rather than simply your say so, especially as your posts so far have been lacking in any for of rational argument or indeed even basic insight into the issue).

Really, you do need to sharpen how you think.

And IT is NOT clear to ANYONE there is NO GOD.

I was a scientist for 20 years, I have travelled the world, I have a IQ of 148. It is certainly NOT clear to me (quite the contrary in fact). So where the nonsense statement come from. HOW is it possible for you to assert that?

You must open your mind a little more. So far I see someone who has made a decision based on nothing more than what they wish to believe and who will attempt to dispute anything that does support them right or wrong or even if they understand it or not.

Probably you are partially blind yourself. I carefully used "if" as a conditional term to create an assumption where I suspend the raging dispute of whether or not God exists, to make a point.

My words again; were "even if".

@Plaetton,

You mean a collective sensing?

Is there any responsibility for inaction?

I was thinking, assuming the single individual was Socrates -- cornerstone of Western civilization and the remaining five were ordinary peasants; wouldn't greater good change from numbers to value.

luluosas:
Not matter what circumstances, no abortion because it is a dangerous crime against God

A crime against God has to be something that puts God in a grave danger. Since we often consider God to be above all dangers, there can be no crime against him. Only the foetus and you would be offended.

KoloOyinbo:
Meaningless sophistry. You make a FOOLISH STATEMENT - "Atheists have successfully argued that God as the West conceives it, is a contradictory entity and therefore cannot exist" IF this was as you claim then there would be NO Deists! The fact that they exist means the argument was NOT successful. In fact only someone so foolish to believe that you CAN prove God exists is as silly as someone who believes you can prove he does not.

You basic and fundamental error in your very first statement is compounded by further begging of the question in the second statement.

Where have these things been disproven? Nowhere in fact. You really need to begin your study all over again! You are coming out with more and more errors of even greater magnitude the more you say.

Even if it is clear to the blind there is no God, theists and deists and their ilk will still rely on faith like a useful blindness.

We are accustomed to finding suffering as a punishment. We assume suffering is always deserved, and dished out according to fault.

In this case, we are in a dilemma because we recognize the innocence of a child despite the 'sinful' circumstances it is a result of. And the pains of the supposed mother because no one deserves to be rape. Rape itself is a form of torture along with its consequences -- a child. The mother does not deserve to carry on the burdens and reminders of rape neither is the child to suffer the 'sins' of the father.

I think, an evil has to be picked but such burden of choice ought not to be ours. It is a no win situation, why would you want to take responsibility for another's troubles. It is best to leave the decision-making to the woman.

KoloOyinbo:
Don't worry. You ARE making many fundamental errors AND it is clear WHY! BUT that is no reason not too keep trying. The concepts ARE difficult but understandable.

I strongly suspect that you are colouring all your reading by what you WANT to believe yourself.

Now consider the scientific method (which has served man well for centuries) and lets see if we can apply the logic and method here. YES, don't be surprise I try to apply it to God's existence or otherwise. So please bear with me. I will describe the method and then see how and IF it works here.

1) We make an observation.

2) We construct a THEORY to possibly explain the observation.
NOTE: The theory MAY be 'true' or 'false'.

3) We construct a test of our theory. This involves a PREDICTION. IF my theory is correct then THIS should follow!
EXAMPLE: We look at star positions AT NIGHT when the SUN is in the opposite part of the sky and record them.
IF Light IS bent by gravity and we look at these stars again but during a SOLAR ECLIPSE when the sun is close to our line of sight to those Stars then we should notice a small deviation from recorded position.

4) We carry out EXPERIMENT (test) to see if the prediction holds
This was done in 1919 (I think - going on memory for the dates) and not only was the deviation observed but it agreed with what had been calculated!

5) We conclude that out THEORY is 'true'

That is the simplest explanation in essence (it is a little more complicated as we may not have the entire 'truth' or our experiment may be flawed - and don't forget that Newtonian mechanics was accepted as true for centuries until Relativity was discovered and it was realised that Newtonian Mechanics was only true in non relativistic conditions)

As an addenda to 5 above we usually ASSUME that a theory contradicting our above idea is FALSE.

This again does not follow.

Theory A: Light itself is made up of WAVES OF ENERGY
Theory B: Light itself is made up of discrete and INDIVIDUAL packets of energy (PHOTONS) {A single particle could not therefore display WAVE properties.

In fact light does both!

Interference patterns support the Wave nature while photoelectric effect etc support the PHOTON nature.

BOTH are correct.

Apply to God.

1) We see a Universe and wonder how it got here
2) One THEORY is a God

3) Now try to devise a TEST?
IMPOSSIBLE. So we can make no inference on the validity OR invalidity of our theory. Insufficient evidence/date.

Thus my grudging respect for the Agnostic and mild amusement at the Deist and Atheist who do not realise they are more alike than either would care to admit.

As a final aside (and I apologise for the length of this post so far) may I (rather tongue in cheek) refer to queries on the NATURE of God, may I offer THREE very PERSONAL ideas:
1) God exists
2) If he exists he is the ultimate scientist
3) He has a wonderful sense of humour and must find the Deist and Atheist alike a great source of amusement!

BUT if,

God is a contradictory being wouldn't that automatically mean he cannot exist?!

Imagine a state such as Imo owing its state police 13 months' salary.

Sanchez01:
Perfect! Was expecting something as this. Pastors ideally would not tell you that preaching is indeed laborious and tasking. They often see it as something they've been called to do. Notice most of these pastors, you'd discover that these are qualified, sound and brilliant beings. In other words, they're professionals in their fields before and after taking the bold step to walk in faith.

Then again, sound Christians understand that the "Priests" as mentioned in Genesis, Exodus, Levitcus and Numbers are certain people who hardly have a life of their own. They don't work, they hardly get married and were instructed to eat from some of the offerings and sacrifices brought before the Lord.

Again, the tribe known as Levites, of the sons of Levi, were given a special task by God (1 Chronicles 16:4; 2 Chronicles 7:6) - to praise ceaselessly in the tabernacle. When the lands of Jacob (Israel) was shared among the twelve, Levites (sons of Levi) were the only ones not apportioned lands (Joshua 18:7)

The Levites and the priests are exactly like our present day pastors. The eat from the church and even though they have qualifications to meet up with the world and its standard, they tend to shove those things aside and focus purely on the "Levitical" ministries. So tell me, in your own words, would you say someone who forsakes all things, and decide to preach the Word of God is lazy and not labouring? If the priests of the old testament could eat from the offerings brought to the temple and is instructed by God to eat from the meats, how then is it any different from the pastors of today who are priests of God?

The levitical privileges enjoyed by the pastors today is propped by charity and can only justified to merely sustain them not enrich. It is inherently wrong to take from the faithful poor to feed pastors way beyond their necessities. Again pastors are fiduciary chiefs who supervise a charity -- the church's funds. Even seculars would be shocked to find trust administrators enriching themselves with the trust entrusted to them.

Besides Jesus found his ministry on the denial of worldly values such as material wealth. Jesus possessions were basic.

Sanchez01:
Ammluv2002, I'm so sorry for responding this late. PHCN abi NEPA has not been nice of late.


I think you addressed BobUg28's post perfectly. And I'd like to recommend to the OP that he should not take some comments seriously as they are from people who are bent on twisting God's Word so as to fault the Gospel. It was quite obvious that the person the OP quoted is either an Atheist or a pagan; either way, he/she showed displeasure at Christians/Pastors and the early missionaries.

BobUg28, just to add to what she stated, the will of God is that His own are wealthy; "I wish above all things that thou mayest PROSPER..." Should a pastor walk up to you, preaching of the majesty of Christ yet is adorned with ragged clothes, then doubt his words. Christ was never a pauper, he had all at His disposal, this best explain why He sent His disciples to fetch some money from the mouth of a fish! (Matt 17:24-27).

If my Saviour is and was never poor, why then should I, His follower, be poor? Pastors, even though most are after material things, are oracles of God and are expected to reflect the riches of God. The early Christian missionaries brought Christianity but did not force us to accept Christ. We did on our own and we found it wonderful. The missionaries never looted or exploit anyone. Please quote the person who made those assertions you quoted. It would be nice to have him share his viewpoint. Ammyluv2002, God bless you for your response. Had to copy some

You mean wealth without labour?!

KoloOyinbo:
Where something IS able to be proven in order to accept it the burden of proof (as you correctly imply) rests with those making the statement.

God/a Creator etc inherently exists (IF God does exist) outside and beyond and before our Universe. God CANNOT be proven so can not be disproven either.

Also in the 'burden of proof' you allude to, NOT being able to prove it does NOT necessarily disprove it. So again we come back to FAITH.

Atheists have successfully argued that God as the West conceives it, is a contradictory entity and therefore cannot exist.

Other Gods which are not essentially metaphysical have been proven to be psychological constructs.

And finally, how does anyone disprove a God with an unclear picture?

KoloOyinbo:
Suppose I had asked What conclusion do you draw for a God that does not exist? Silly question!

If you are trying to prove Atheism 'superior' in any manner, shape or form then you are not making any progress whatsoever (nor would it be possible to as only Agnosticism has a basis in rationality).

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

KoloOyinbo:
Well I'm not sure why you ask this but my initial response (without much analysis) is yes. After all empirical proofs cannot be applied to metaphysical concepts so if you are defining it as empirical you actually make my case quite unassailable!

What others proof or disproofs did were you considering if any?

BUt wHat conclusion do you drAW for a metaphysical God being inherently inaccessible to us?

KoloOyinbo:
You cannot justify the statement "inherently false"!

The atheist is NOT expected to prove anything (don't know why you say according to me? - please read my statements more carefully before misquoting me) I have repeatedly stated that NEITHER the atheist of theist CAN prove their points of view.

By proof, you mean empirical proofs, right?

KoloOyinbo:
The validity of the Agnostic position is that they refuse to go beyond rationality (a valid viewpoint). Therefore they cannot make a choice in the fact of insufficient evidence.

The other two diametrically opposed points of view are based solely on a belief or faith.

I am not sure what you are getting at when introducing the topic of the validity and the truth of Gods existence. If we do not wish to waste time on semantics then we can take them as synonymous.

We are in a deadlock. Because we arrive at different conclusions.

The only common ground we have is that the theist relies on faith for a metaphysical fact.

To me, the atheist merely points out that metaphysical facts are beyond our reality and therefore any claim in respect to it, is inherently false. They (metaphysical facts) are unknown to men.

To you, the atheist is expected to somehow prove in an empirical fashion, despite the volatility of metaphysics, a negative fact about metaphysics!. While the agnostic rightly suspends his judgement regarding all metaphysical facts

tafabaloo:
Only a real woman would see this balance on your account and still stick to/with you.

True or False ?

Who is a real woman?

KoloOyinbo:
Goodness. Did you think about this analytically BEFORE you wrote it? Or was it just the first thing that popped into your head!

Mind you SOME agnostics feel that ONE day there may be an answer that will then allow them to know which is the true position.

Think about the three positions and try and see which one is rational!

And if you want to follow my footsteps read carefully what I say as you don't seem even to reference it or else do so wrongly.

Finally think about what is the difference (if any) of the validity of Gods existence (or not) and the truth of Gods existence (or not).

So if there a substantial difference between the validity of God's existence and the truth of his existence, why then is the agnostic position relevant when such view is not discussing the truth of God's existence, which is what the atheists and the theists are concerned about?!

It begs the question, why wasn't Boko Haram's logistics targeted in the first place?

KoloOyinbo:
Did you read ANY of the posts?

Where did get the nonsense that the agnostic has proof?

The agnostic realises there is no proof either way and so based on rationality cannot make a decision.

So your agnostic himself has no proof that God's existence cannot be justified for the absence of proofs?

And where is the rationality rooted? Because you yourself pointed out that rationality does not exist in a vacuum. AND you further pointed out that rationality can only justify validity and not truth. Since that is the case, your agnostic is merely bothered with the validity of God's existence and not the truth of his existence. I'm only following your footsteps.

Why not advocate for more decentralization of power from the centre. That will satisfy everyone.

KoloOyinbo:
Then there will never be dialogue for they have never agreed! Did you not know this?

When you make a statement please take a moment to reflect on the follow on consequences and what they imply.

But there is indeed a dialogue amongst these people, and that is why it is important they refer to the same God otherwise you can not claim the agnostic has proofs and the atheists and the theists do not.

KoloOyinbo:
Yes no proof for or against multiverse we accept that either view is taken on Faith only. Just Like the Theist and Atheist position.

I will be happy to define my own PERSONAL idea of God but only privately as there are too many fools about who just challenge things with lack of thought to generate an argument and it would detract from the thread. Or if someone opens a thread (without my name this time) I may drop in from time to time with a comment.

Don't you think atheists, agnostics and theists have to talk about the same God, there has to be that unity otherwise there is no true dialogue.