₦airaland Forum

Totino:
Actually, the 'parking' company owner re to bear the cost because 1, by collecting money from a customer (car owner) they've agreed to secure d car from REASONABLE FORSEEABLE DAMAGE(S) and theft.
On d other hand, if d case is taken to court, d parking company can claim an ACT OF GOD because no reasonable person would av foreseen d falling of d tree thereby making both party liable for d damage.
Finally, it depend on aw reasonable the lawyer is and aw gud wit words.

Probably the blind reasonable person would not 'see' the possibility of a tree in a car park damaging a car. There is always the likelihood of parts of a tree and the tree itself damaging a car. So it is foreseeable.

KoloOyinbo:
There is no proof of multiverses and they are irrelevant to this either way.

You second paragraph is merely a restatement of the basic unsupported atheistic ideas which have to be taken on FAITH alone precisely because they are unsupported.

You CANT prove Gods existence or NON existence so why you keep introducing this irrelevancy is unknown. So nobody has the responsibility of proving anything.

In the absence of a PROOF either way the individual is free to take either choice on a personal basis. You seem to have trouble grasping this and yet it a very simple point.

I have stated my own personal reasons why I choose God and find that for me it is a much superior choice. If I did not then I would have to be agnostic as atheism seems too alien to the nature of the majority (personal observation). It just seems to have absolutely nothing to offer. Might still be true of course but is such a miserable and empty creed that I (again personal observation) cannot understand its attraction to any human.

If you get something out it (an illusion that your are more rational than a Theist {NO we are both equally less rational than the agnostic} or some idea that you are freer as you only have your own personal moral code to follow {newsflash - most theists do this themselves or choose freely the set of beliefs which coincide with their own values}) then good for you - enjoy. But please realise that the opposing point of view is every bit a valid as you. As for the atheists who attack Theism I pity and dismiss them even more than the misguided Theists who think there is a proof of God.

Hope that answers your questions and gives you a deeper understand of these two points of view.

I have respect for all views, that is why I believe a dialogue is occurring between the various views.

Yes there is no proof for the Multiverse, yet the idea remains that physicality or whatever it means cannot be categorically be restricted to our universe like you proposing.

If I asked you to define this God you talk about, whose definition would you use?

The car park administrator can be considered to be a bailee and the terms of the bailment includes a duty of care towards the chattel, that's the car. An additional factor is, the car park administrator was rewarded for keeping the car safe so his duty is stricter.

KoloOyinbo:
YOU were the one asking what God the agnostic had in mind not me! Some agnostics are more of I don't care than I cant decide and so may have nothing in mind! That why I said you should ask them.

There is NO independent source of knowledge. IF there was then we could PROVE one way or the other!

IF God exists then he (again a presumption that God is HE) existed before the Physical Universe and independent/outside of its Physical Laws hence the term metaphysical.

C'mon! Multiverses which are hypothesized to be outside our universe, does that make it metaphysical?! NO, it does not. Rather people just play around with words like physical and spiritual and transcendental without any real implication.

I just wanted you to realize that God is an overly subjective idea because if atheists decide to create their own Gods to disprove whilst the agnostics create theirs that is defined beyond proofs and theists . . . do what they do best create GOD, there would be confusion and no effective dialogue. That is why I insist theists have the sole responsibility of proving God's existence. In the absence of such, it is valid to dismiss an ineffective proof.

KoloOyinbo:
I think you would have to ask the agnostic. Besides if you are not sure if a God exists or as in the case of an atheist believe God does not exist then you don't have any Characteristics to go on!

If we accept (for the sake of the argument) that God exists then as God created the Universe such a God would be infinitely beyond our understanding or feeble attempts to define. I have my own person way of thinking of God but again THATS JUST ME. Others may well disagree and are very entitled to do so.

I don't mind the questions at all! If you want you can email them direct to me. I hope you are getting something from my answers even if it is just curiosity!

If it helps any I consider myself a non denominational Christian although I am SOOOOO liberal in my thoughts that MANY people would not consider me Christian. (Again MANY other debates there)!

The agnostic does not have nor creates God, the theist does, and we rely on the definitions given by the theists. The agnostic does not enjoy an independent source of knowledge that supplies the information on God. How did we know God was metaphysical? because the theist said so.

I appreciate your open mindness.

KoloOyinbo:
Have you read ANYTHING I have said?

The agnostic simply states that as there can be no PROOF either way they cannot make a decision. It could be either but they do not or cannot choose.

We have already established that there are no proofs there is or is not a God.

Your second question is more general and is why people have been searching for so long and come up with their own very personal answers.

Its different for everyone. The agnostic accepts they will never have an answer. The atheist believes there is NO answer. The Theists are free to choose between whatever seems most acceptable to them.

Theists are (generally) limited in choice by the region and culture they grow up in and also the level of education in that area. You are unlikely to be a Jew/Hindu/Moslem/Christianity if you have had little of no exposure to that religion. Polytheistic cultures tend to thrive where educational standards are lowest. etc

I can only answer all those on a very personal basis. I believe I have a conscience which as it often acts against my own best interest I believe to be God given. I look at what my conscience says is right and wrong (NOT going to debate the meaning in this context of right and wrong) and choose the Religion that I feel is most self consistent within itself AND consistent with what I believe has been revealed to me by God. This works for me. Will probably NOT work for millions each with their own reason why!

And WHAT God does the agnostic have in mind when he says there are no proofs to support his existence or nonexistence?!

Please pardon my persistent questioning

KoloOyinbo:
LOL. This play on words is not a argument and has been rejected by philosophers for millennia!

God either exists OR does not exist. This is independent of anything we say or don't say - both theist and atheist.

We cannot prove, we cannot disprove. Therefore EITHER case rests of FAITH.

Only the agnostic is justifiable as they say 'insufficient data'.

As for "You keep acting like God is a being independent from theists' claims" Yes that is exactly what theists believe He IS such a being. We cannot prove it or disprove it. - FAITH.

A lot of this is covered in basic philosophy works which you might find interesting. They do not side with either theist or atheist but look at the arguments for each point of view and why in thousands of year neither side has been proven (or is even provable).

Only the agnostic needs no disproof of God.

A theist needs proof that God exists (and fails hence resorts to FAITH [an unsupported belief])

An atheist needs proof that God does not exist (and fails hence resorts to another unsupported belief - FAITH)

Failure to prove existence does NOT prove NON existence. Either case is then possible.

How does an agnostic use scientific or empirical proofs to confront a metaphysical being in the first place?!! The supposed proofs are useless. It is like searching for infra light with bare eyes.

Who is God? How do we get the truest picture of God? We cannot see it for starters. Are we supposed to rely on religious holy books or holy prophets or the general idea the Western civilization has developed on God?? How do we find the true picture of God independently?!

KoloOyinbo:
WOW! there are rigorous proofs in support of it (atheism) LOL. Man has been searching for this for millennia. I thought you had already accepted that:
A) We cannot prove the existence of God
B) We cannot prove the NON existence of God.

That is what the discussion has been all about for days now! Suddenly you come up with this error?

Plus in the previous post I have explained that Agnosticism IS supportable and proveable and therefore is hardly a belief

KoloOyinbo,

You keep acting like God is a being independent from theists' claims. An atheist in addressing the non existence of God has to rely on the theists' claims. If God cannot be proven to exist, then he need not be disproved. Whats left to be disproved?!

KoloOyinbo:
Then I would say not as it can be supported and is provable.

In fact i had a very broad definition of belief in mind only to turn to the nearest dictionary to find the common understanding of belief vastly different from what i tthought. Apparently a belief is defined as a conviction without rigorous proof.

I defined a belief as an idea dwelling in the mind regardless of proof.

Now if we are adopting the common definition, most atheists will obviously disagree that atheism is largely a belief because there are rigorous proofs in support of it. While my definition will include both atheism and agnosticism since they are essentially ideas with or without proofs.

So which do you endorse?!

KoloOyinbo:
Agnosticism can be supported by logic and fact!

We do not and cannot know either way IF there is a God. Therefore the agnostic simply says I do not know. In scientific terms - insufficient data. A rational and sustainable (and indeed unassailable) position.

A assertion with evidence is a fact without it is an unsupported statement/belief.

i simply asked if it was a belief.

KoloOyinbo:
Your definitions support me, thanks.

2a Atheism is a BELIEF! A belief that is every bit as unsupported as the belief in a creator.

I said it would be interesting to discuss if atheism is a religion and so it would. As I mentioned I think a very strong argument could be made for it but did you read my proviso? - that we could agree on a suitable definition of religion.

I am unsure why you have stated twice now that "hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God"? Surely 2a and 2b that YOU quote refute this claim?

Also 2b defines atheism as a doctrine and might be relevant to any discussion on atheism being a religion.

Anyway I have been responding to questions here for yourself and indeed Kay17. The phrase that you opened the new thread about above implies I have the full explanation of atheism being a religion. I have said I consider there are strong arguments pro this stance but there may also be some against. It is of mild academic interest to me but please feel free to start the ball rolling and I may look it on it from time to time thanks.

isnt agnosticism a belief as well?

aren't negative and positive a assertions beliefs?

KoloOyinbo:
Your definitions support me, thanks.

2a Atheism is a BELIEF! A belief that is every bit as unsupported as the belief in a creator.

I said it would be interesting to discuss if atheism is a religion and so it would. As I mentioned I think a very strong argument could be made for it but did you read my proviso? - that we could agree on a suitable definition of religion.

I am unsure why you have stated twice now that "hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God"? Surely 2a and 2b that YOU quote refute this claim?

Also 2b defines atheism as a doctrine and might be relevant to any discussion on atheism being a religion.

Anyway I have been responding to questions here for yourself and indeed Kay17. The phrase that you opened the new thread about above implies I have the full explanation of atheism being a religion. I have said I consider there are strong arguments pro this stance but there may also be some against. It is of mild academic interest to me but please feel free to start the ball rolling and I may look it on it from time to time thanks.

isnt agnosticism a belief as well?

KoloOyinbo:
In the context of something that cannot by its very nature be proven one way OR the other (The existence or non existence of a Creator/God) you are quite free to choose either position. Can you not see that this is independent of rationality? Neither stance can be supported by any rational nor indeed disproven by it.

You don't seem to follow at all or you would not use statements concerning Faith being deducible etc.

I am unaware of using it as a shield against any position? I merely state that the disbelief in a God seems to me to be even more ludicrous and lacking in rational than a belief IN God.

I think you would very much enjoy a course in basic philosophy. It would at the very least enhance your enjoyment of the foolish ideas put forward BOTH for the belief in and disbelief in a God. I just find the disbelief side even funnier.

I don't want to keep going round and round the same points but am happy to try and advise if you can pinpoint the exact point you don't understand.

Why do you find atheism ludicrous?

KoloOyinbo:
You are correct in the first part of what you say but quite wrong in the second. We have already discussed AT LENGTH that if faith WAS deducible etc then IT WOULD NOT BE FAITH! (You seemed to agree and I thought you understood)

ALSO the use of the word FALSEHOOD implies that it can be DISPROVEN which of course it cannot! You need to reread all the previous posts. As after seeming to understand you return to the basic fundamental error.

If Faith cannot be deducible from prior truth, then it is inherently irrational. Note that I understand why you say Faith is independent from all other authorities while i on the other hand, use its lack of authorities to hang it. One can easily choose not to accept faith and neither can one use faith as a shield or sword against any position.

KoloOyinbo:
Illogical is against logic. Logic is a reasoning mechanism and something can be logical AND ALSO FALSE!

Logic and truth are separate. I hope I am not saying what you already know as this is taught in day 1 or 2 of ANY basic logic course.

Premise 1: All cats can fly
Premise 2: 'Fluffy' is a cat
Therefore: Fluffy can fly!

This is LOGICAL but FALSE! (Sorry if you already know it but I have met people who talk about logic for years and don't even know this point.

For Faith I would simply say logic does not apply. Hmmm is there such a word as 'Alogical' i.e. without logic? Much better than illogical - against logic.

We are of course arguing semantics only. I am glad it is only a fun discussion as, in some ways, it is quite foolish to even attempt to apply logic to FAITH and indicates an even bigger misunderstanding of logic than of FAITH.

I am enjoying the discussion and happy to continue it on PM if you wish rather than clog up the thread but I am wondering what your own point actually is?

Yes, a statement could be logical valid yet false. And logic is a reasoning mechanism albeit not isolated. We have in our minds basic criteria for truth and we almost subconsciously apply these criteria in our thinking. But you to say Faith is not deducible from any truths be it selfevident or otherwise, suggests not just its likely falsehood but irrationality.

If we all accept Faith is illogical, then any stand made with faith is likewise illogical.

Atheism and Agnosticism to me both rely on negative assertions. The nature of negative assertions rely on the contradicting positive assertions. The positive assertion is the one actually making the step forward. But negative assertions just stand on the same spot. So if someone says God (with the varying and contradicting definitions) exist, all the atheist and the agnostic need to do is destroy the claim with any internal inconsistency found in it OR use accepted truths between the atheist and the theist against the claim.

For you to find atheism illogical, you must be making an hidden assumption which you have not informed us on.

KoloOyinbo:
Unsubstantiated is better BUT both merely state the obvious and what I have said repeatedly and many posts ago!
Also a further error and logical contradiction is the assertion "upon which Faith OUGHT to rest". The definition precludes a basis or foundation.
So to reiterate my belief I prefer FAITH in Gods existence as it seems marginally less nonsensical than FAITH in Gods non existence.
A pure rationalist ignoring everything else can only arrive at Agnosticism.

But agree with me that faith is illogical

KoloOyinbo:
Well the 'Fear' you mention is VERY useful! It is natures mechanism of self preservation and found in all the higher mammals and other animals.

We were not debating if FAITH had usefulness or value (although on a person basis it seems to bring great satisfaction to those who embrace it).

As for irrelevant words like incriminates it? Incriminates it of what? Please try and construct arguments logically rather than emotionally. You must be incriminated of 'something', explicit or implicit, but what?

Now what explains why we have faith? You have made a dubious assertion without substantiating it.

Really not sure what your point is. You asked me to explain my stance (which I have said is a personal stance) and I have done so. It is based (as all personal stances are) on a grand mixture of experience, personality and intellect in whatever degree the individual does or does not possess them.

Naturally if I thought another stance was more valid then I would adopt that. So far I have not encountered ANYTHING (especially here) which even comes close.

By incrimination, I did not obviously mean guilt or any association with crime. Rather I was saying the lack of a basis/foundation upon which Faith ought to rest on is absent. This very absent foundation which Faith prides itself for lacking is incriminating in the sense that it is patently faulty and illogical.

I could use another word -- unsubstantiated.

The prominent nations took centuries to crystallize their national unity. And neither was their nationalism a guided or deliberate effort. I dont think we need to become nationalists before we can live a country together. We can find other bonds like our race or a common ideology. Most of the people who advocate for a breakup of Nigeria, have no idea of the future that ushers. They have no idea of what sort of economies or politicial system would emerge out of the break up. They are neither visionaries nor geniuses. They are often people who cannot see beyond their noses. People crippled with shortsightedness.

Beamborla:
He was wrong, he is wrong and he is still wrong.

The statement I'm sure was made just to beautify their selfish interest.

Let the secession begin. Even if it's just for 2 yrs.
Let every body go their separate ways already
This forced marriage is chocking me

But Lord Lugard is not referring to the union of two nations, rather two administrative units. It is deceptive to believe there can be a meaningful divorce because the supposed status quo is itself a creation of Lugard.

KoloOyinbo:
Faith NEVER had or has a basis. That is WHY it is FAITH. As for being dispensed with ( ) I am sure a little thought would allow you to dispense with this idea! Faith has always been around and always will be (unless you dispense with humanity).

The point is that uninfluenced minds tend to drift towards the idea of a God. Always have! This seems innate in the human psyche. This in itself is not enough to prove the existence of a creator however some (myself included) take it an indication (nothing more).

If you are advocating agnosticism (the I don't know position - or NON ASSUMING as you mention above) that is fine but it is no more simple of complicate than adopting the Belief or Non belief idea.

From a purely personal point of view I see many more believers and non believers than agnostics. I am sure there is some interesting psychological point there.

Neither Atheism or Agnosticism is any more rational or logical than the belief in a creator.

As an ex scientist (with an IQ or 148) I like to be as rational as possible. That is why I reject Atheism - it appears even less logical or rational than a belief in a Creator. On occasion I have drifted towards agnosticism but find that too much of a cop out!
(Agnostics please don't be offended - that is just for me).

Probably the most amusing thing in all these threads is the total lack of understanding about the clear difference between FAITH and superstition. In all probability explained by the very understandable and commendable focus on practical rather than philosophical topic in the education system in most of the developing world. And yet the fact that these threads exist and are so popular illustrates that there is a desire for these subjects to be taught! Well that is a debate for the educationalists in each country to resolve for themselves.

Even if I agree with you that Faith is innate in man's psyche, it does not say anything about its usefulness or value. Fear is equally found in the human psyche but we often regard it the preserve of the coward. It rather explains why we have Faith. And in a logical frame of things, Faith as you have admitted has no basis. The lack of a basis incriminates it. Nonetheless, if we were to view the world with a clear len, Faith would not play a part.

KoloOyinbo:
If faith had a basis then it would not be FAITH!

Plus are we talking FAITH in the belief that there is a God OR FAITH in the belief that there is not?

BOTH points of view have no rational basis.

But if Faith has no basis or it finds itself as the basis then it can be dispensed with.

What would an uninfluenced mind think about God? I think such a mind would naturally adopt a non-assuming position. He would not hold a belief in God since that would be a positive act. So it is simpler not to believe in Gods.

Remarkable. Two different views anchored on the same basis.

Yet the basis of faith remains in doubt.