₦airaland Forum

AgapeCharis:
Goodday,

I went through some threads and I am moved to pen this few words down.
Let me start with this bible verse: The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.

There are lots of things we seek answers to about God and His people but seem hidden. We try to comprehend this and that and see if it’s reasonable in any way and we are disappointed in d end. Some come to the conclusion that there is no God. Some conclude that there is a God but certainly not the God of the Christians.

I’ll like to drop this here. God is a spirit. An effort to understand a spirit being in the sense realm is and will always be futile. Trying to understand his ways or get him or his kids to “prove” His existence is rather a fruitless endeavour. We cannot understand God completely with our minds. We cannot decipher his existence or what he does with mental activity. Why? Because our mind is greatly limited in things it can access. This is where the spirit of God comes in.

To understand God, u must first and foremost believe in his existence. And u don’t believe with ur mind. The mind doesn’t believe (this is a fact). You only believe with ur heart by the help of God’s spirit. The mind always tries to analyse things. Gearing towards that is very misleading. u’ll say we’re fools for believing something we can’t prove. U’r wrong. It is when u believe that insight starts coming. Until u believe, there is no insight. You have to open ur mind to the word of God and pray for understanding. In fact, u don’t believe something u’ve seen or proven. To believe means to accept something as true. Having little or no facts notwithstanding. I don’t believe I am a boy. I’ll be crazy to say I believe I am a boy. I know I am a boy. There’s a difference between believing and knowing. God be praised, some of us have come to know there is someone who’s d almighty God and he is definitely the God of d Christians.

Some say, how can a loving God destroy his children in hell forever? Let me remind u that God never created hell fire for anybody. It was created for Lucifer and his demons. That’s the original purpose. But u see, satan is a deceiver. He existed millions of years before Adam was created. He is very cunny. What he does is getting people to join him in hell by having them on his train. But that is why Jesus came. To save us from sin and satan. Jesus has come and he has already saved the world and everybody therein legally. Everyone in this world is already saved legally because d price has been paid. But ur salvation will only become vital when u accept the finished work of Jesus on the cross. Until then, u’r stl hanging. Some of u reading this will have to come down from that fence now and accept Jesus. Yes! You! Mail me.

Note that no one can “prove” God’s word. That’s the job of the holy spirit. When u open up to him, he’ll surely flood ur heart with light and everything will become clear.



[size=30pt] Ask ur questions[/size]


Cc:
Everyone I'm following

Komex(m), Jennimma(f), MizMyColi(f), ireneony(f), trendiitee(f), Elantracey(f), Confession14(f), kika23(f), Nandita(f), chidyhels(f), ladyshawlecx(f), Evina(f), priscaoge(f), Dahjhi, lilmaxfidel(m), DoroDiva, Pamilerinayomi(f), pweetyz(f), marieolae(f), BreezyRita(f), Kachisbarbie(f), tosyne2much(m), Geezwil(m), , Seun(m), samflexxy(m), naijaboiy, blesseenE(f), Nellie6(f), ijechikky, Neldrizzy(m), EmptinexTune(m), Annypie(f), Handsome1, Edykul(f), Mzflexydeeva(f), pretydiva(f), drcynthia(f)

How do you confirm the existence of a spiritual realm which is metaphysical and way beyond our senses and intellectual grasp?

UyiIredia:
No. All you need is the ocean, rivers and lakes, sunlight and some wind and you have a water cycle. Mountains are a plus to it. However, even if they were a subsystem they are in no way analogous to subsystems in living things which regulate their behaviour. BTW the water cycle doesn't follow any code.

With the array of naturally assembled factors, I'd be led to believe that the water cycle is as well a guided natural system. And for the water cycle to be consistent and continual, it necessarily has a regulation within its system.

If you refuse to accept the above, then you would be making nonsense of your term 'guided natural process'.

clevvermind:
These are ten things you should never do to your wife.

1. Never cheat on your wife.

2. Never deny your wife sex.

3. Never beat your wife. Whether slap or blows.

4. Never call your wife names such as witch, whor'e, b'itch, fool etc.

5. Never hate your wife. Only love your wife.

6. Never cease to buy your wife good gifts.

7. Never cease to give your wife money for market and her upkeep.

8. Never cease to pray for your wife.

9. Never cease to call your sweet names. Always tell her sweet words.

10. Never cease to defend and protect your wife.

So help us God.

You mean faithful and loyal wife, right?

sinequanon:
You see the difference? I give examples of what and how.

You just ask a question. Give a blanket "no" answer, and repeat your belief. There is no further insight into your belief.

But fair enough, we can leave it their.

That's because I am not interested with talking about the ethical and peoples side of science. You want to be indulged with science and people - fine! But I feel it is a distraction and misrepresentation of what science truly is. I prefer to see science as a pure concept.

sinequanon:
You've heard the expression, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

Ironically, science spends a lot of time talking about empirical evidence yet wishes to be assessed in the abstract. What science IS, IS a standard of practice for PEOPLE. Science, as we are defining it, leverages human social organization, peer structure, social and philosophical exclusivity and philosophical universality in its standards. It defines soundness and validity in terms of these human factors. The benefit of science is to be judged in its practice.

Even if you were to claim that "what science is" is an abstract standard which we should strive towards, science dictates the social organization of that endeavour. So divorcing the practice of science from its philosophical standard is not only misleading, but ultimately valueless.

This explains what informs your perspective. And your attitude towards science. You mentioned science 'leverages human organisations and peer structure' but what is science. Is its goal to merely create standards for men? In my view no. And indeed, we can isolate science as a concept, and deal with it accordingly.

Even though we contest whether God exists or not, and whether he is the anchor for morality; let us agree on what exactly 'objective morality' is:

1. All acts have an inherent moral value, by which on account of this, it is judged. And God loves good acts by this standard.

2. All acts are neutral and required a value allocation by some authority namely God. The absence of this authority is the absence of morality.

sinequanon:
A substantial amount is made up, though. The object is more to obtain funding, than to educate the public.

The most recent and shameless charade is the "discovery" of the Higgs Boson, or should that be "zoo of Bosons, blah, blah, blah", as they tried to dress it up?

The Large Hadron Collider clearly wasn't powerful enough to achieve what they wanted. They needed an upgrade.

How do they justify the huge cost, without something substantial to show for the initial investment?

They lie. They say they've discovered the Higgs Boson, and they give the guys Nobel Prizes, etc. etc. theatrics.

They use PR to market a blip as a zoo of bosons cum Higgs Boson, and the dance goes on.

The media plays along. What has anyone of importance got to lose?

Science and Religion should be separated from their practitioners. If you looked at science for what it is, you wouldn't come to this conclusion.

PastorAIO:
If I may jump to the defence of Sinequanon, I believe what he meant was the Philosophy of Science, i.e. the attitude that informs a lot of science. Especially Materialism comes to mind.

the findings of Quantum Physics were not readily accepted because they confounded deeply held beliefs about Nature. Was it Einstein that said something about 'God and Dice'. Scientists have shaken off those attitudes and beliefs about nature when it comes to that field but that philosophy still informs the way they do Science in other fields.

Religion too has been afflicted with this way of thinking but definitely it doesn't apply to all religionists. It is a certain way of seeing the world that has informed both Science and Religion. Yeah Science is first off the mark to begin to shake of that attitude publicly, but many religionist are still stuck in that way of thinking. However many religionist, moreso in the past than in the present, are also open to learning new things.

I had a little talk with sinequanon about the impact quantum physics had on ordinary scientific assumptions.

sinequanon:
"In an instant" is begging the question, but yes (sort of). It would be a bit like experiencing a landscape instead of looking through a heap of snapshots of the landscape.

But even the event of experiencing has some element of progression. And 'standing' still at a point contemplates movement.

At some point in your 'theory', contradictions would be forced together in a single point. One would experience two exclusive states at a single moment. One would be both dead and alive at the same time.

I think consciousness pervades everything, so it is conscious.

Then I would be conscious of my creation of time. If I am not, it is either time is objective or the time creation process is unconscious.

UyiIredia:
We never did. It has been central to this discussion from the get go. If you are shifting that aside then forget about this. In the meantime you are ignoring the fact that water cycles lack subsystems which clearly regulate their behaviour in response to .varying environmental indices like temperature. Subsystems which regulate behaviour is what I have very REPEATEDLY emphasized constitutes a guided natural process to your continued ignorance

But there are clearly subsystems within the water cycle. If one of the subsystems is off sync the cycle wouldn't work at all. The water cycle clearly is a 'guided' natural process since it does not follow random patterns. Whether the water cycle follows a code I don't know.

sinequanon:
A figment of our limited perception.

It is a way our brain organizes events.

If we had "perfect recall" and "perfect infinite anticipation" we would comprehend everything in an instant, and there would be no TIME as we commonly know it.

Then if progression removed from the picture, it implies that everything happens in an instant, right?

Also is this figment of man's imagination, is a conscious or unconscious function of the brain?

UyiIredia:
Instead of going down that winded path simply give an example of natural processes (outside of living things) making a code.

We placed codes aside, since we are disagreeing about the definition.

We are now talking about guided natural processes and I have raised the systemic consistency in both living systems and water cycle. That is where we are right now.

UyiIredia:
Stop obfuscating things. This is what you do when you have no point to make. This talk started when I pointed out that natural processes didn't make codes and you tried to hijack the work of living systems as an example. A wrong move since living systems weren't the natural processes I had in mind AND it was unguided natural processes eg windflow, sunlight etc I was referring to.

I specifically distinguished guided from unguided natural processes by noting that the latter simply occurs in given conditions eg streams occur more frequently in rainy season in the tropics while the former (is guided natural processes) depends on systems that control its behaviours and its very existence.

I know you did. However, rather than try to force my views down your throat, I'm willing to find the true conflict points.

Back to our discussion. You said there were unguided and guided natural processes. The underlying idea behind 'guided' natural processes is the abstract principles which they based. Similarly the water cycle as a whole appears to be 'guided' by abstract principles otherwise it wouldn't exist. The water cycle not fairly 'random'. I intend to use the systemic consistency similar to both living systems and the water cycle as a basis that natural processes are valid immediate causes.

what is time?

UyiIredia:
And I've said that living things are the ONLY examples of guided natural systems.

I find the water cycle to be a very interesting 'unguided' natural process. Apparently in your view, the elaborate water cycle is not based on abstract design principles, is it? Don't you think systems in general all enjoy internal coherency?

davidylan:
that there (in highlights) is the sole reason atheists love and support the ToE. That laughable stuff about it being the most revolutionary scientific theory since Galileo's heliocentric model of our solar system? Hilarious nonsense. What about the theory of DNA structure that revolutionized medicine and how we understand genetics?

Almost all scientific recoveries are revolutionary, hence I carefully used the word 'probably'.

UyiIredia:
That can't be excluded. Living things are the only examples of guided natural processes and I've already explained why in my previous posts.

I actually meant other examples aside from life.

italo:
Heresy was a crime against the state.

Many people accused used to be subject to mob justice...many innocent people were killed.

The Church stepped in with the inquisition to give each accused a fair trial.

Italo that is clearly untrue. The State and the Church were not as separated as in our times. The monarch justified his throne with the scriptures, and the scriptures were enforced with the state apparatus. Nonetheless, heresy is wholly a theological topic which was way way beyond the grasp of the common people.

You have to bring practical examples to buttress your point.

PastorAIO:
Is macof the same dude as Sinequanon?

It is a problem of measurement.

I doubt it.

UyiIredia:
The physiological processes in all living things are guided natural processes.

excluding that please.

PastorAIO:
How Huge? And what part do you think something like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle plays on your understanding of identity.

For those who don't know Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.....


This is what is know as the uncertainty principle, that certain quantities, such as position, energy and time, are unknown, except by probabilities. In its purest form, the uncertainty principle states that accurate knowledge of complementarity pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the location of an electron, but not its momentum (energy) at the same time.


http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec06.html

Same webpage also goes on to say...


The wave nature of the microscopic world makes the concept of `position' difficult for subatomic particles. Even a wave packet has some `fuzziness' associated with it. An electron in orbit has no position to speak of, other than it is somewhere in its orbit.

Sinequanon sees the above as a problem of measurements.

UyiIredia:
I've given examples already. I have used the storms, streams and other abiotic aspects of nature eg sunlight & winds as examples of unguided natural processes because there's no system in place regulate their existence. When certain physical conditions are met they just happen. But in the case of ALL living things there are systems such signal transduction pathways which control how what a cell does and how a cell behaves in a specific context. You can NEVER see a similar thing in the abiotic part of nature hence the term unguided (or blind).

And what are guided natural processes, please equally demonstrate with illustrations.

PastorAIO:
How important is Location to ontological status?

Beautiful Q

honourhim:
Who wrote Genesis? How are you sure that it was one person that wrote it? Again people in those days lived up to nine hundred years and above but it seems you are looking at them with the present day life span of below hundred years (or a little above 100 years for a few).

I don't know who wrote the Genesis but I don't see any reason why we should accept what's beyond the ordinary. It is hard enough to believe a thousand year old scribe wrote down the earliest book of the Bible.

UyiIredia:
You say natural because its physical. This doesnt quite cut it. Using your logic, I could well use the term natural to describe artficial systems like computers. Lemme use the word unguided natural processes to qualify it better. Unguided natural processes such as storms, streams, sunlight. Basically the abiotic part of nature. These never make coded systems of any sort. Given many exotic organic chemicals in corpses left in places like deserts, forests or oceans, we don't see a smidgen of anything better arising. Living things can be classified as guided natural processes which run on rules coded in the DNA and abstract design principles.

What would "unguided" natural processes mean? Kindly use examples to illustrate.

italo:
At least you appear a more honest debater.

1. My aim here was not to say that the Church has never done wrong in 2000 years. Of course, it has. It's composed of humans. My aim was to respond to Davien who suggested that religious people kill, unlike Atheists...and religion stiffles what is good and true. That's why I showed him how the Catholic Church built western civilization and how Atheists are the worst mass murderers in history by a distance.

2. If you want to narrow this wide issue to only Galileo and the crusades, then you should tell me what is the aim of doing so. But to answer to your points above:

It could be argued that the Church did Galileo a favour. If Galileo had been subjected to mob justice, as many people in his situation were, he would have ended badly. The Pope apologizing doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong in what they did...just like your father apologizing after reprimanding you with a slap doesn't mean you didn't deserve the slap.

Have you read the Galileo story from an honest source?

What did the Church do wrong?

You know you haven't showed why the crusades were not a good thing.

Boko Haram, ISIS should be allowed to keep the territories they have controlled for a good while, right?

Yet heresy is a religious crime. A crime against God, and whatever constitutes heresy would hardly be clear to a largely illiterate population. Except a figure of apt authority such as priest, told them what heresy was and who was committing the masses wouldn't have known. Again, you argued your perspective.

tevinsolt:
when I started college as a bio science major, I started to question some of the things I have read myself from the bible, I figured I will be doing my self a great disservice if there's no God and I keep spending my time on meaningless things to please this "God". The more I searched, I realized my five senses are the only things I have to understand the world around me. but if there's no God i do I know I can trust my five senses to tell me what's true and what's not. And in all my observation, life is always a product of life never have I seen life coming from none life. I'm still searching, but in all intellectual honesty, If a does God exists, the Judeo-christian God is the most plausible explanation for our existence.

But that's what Gods are for. They create life and things. All Gods are relevant in that respect.

I'm not afraid to say the origin of life is much of speculation. Theories attempt to explain it. It is the next big challenge for naturalists. And it would be an interesting one. Yet I see no point making a refutation against speculation. Evolution cannot explain origin of life - true, it was never an argument. Darwin never insisted so.

Kay17:
How possibly could the Bible writers have know the origins of human language without relying on folklore and oral sources. That is an important hurdle you have to scale, you have to prove that the Bible which is a secondary source, was able to access a reliable primary source of information.

honourhim:
Who were the bible writers and how did you know that they relied on folklore or oral sources. You mean that the bible was written by people who did not witness the events? The writers you rely on their information to discredit the bible, what makes them more right than the bible writers?

It is obvious from the Bible itself. For example, the book of Genesis narrates events that stretch through thousands of years. It is then reasonable to believe that the writer did not live for over a thousand years to record the events, rather he must have lived at the tail end of those events and relied on sources available during the material time. The Genesis writer would not have been present to observe Adam and Eve do their business, definitely not. Therefore, there must be a primary source.

Japhet04:
The founder of Buddhism explained his story on Christianity, he claimed that he was on his way to a church service when he was denied entry by the Christians in the church,consequently his mind was resented on Christianity so he went back to his country in India and formed Buddhism which is now the third largest religion in the world and this gives Christians an obvious thought, " if only Christians were Christ like Buddhism would have never existed"

Lmao!

UyiIredia:
codes don't evolve they are highly conserved. I would expect you to know what a code is. in any case what I see is a materialist disputing Gods existence on his baseless premise. As I've said natural processes can't make codes.

But a natural process was responsible for the DNA transfer from parents to offspring along with the offspring's individual DNA footprint.

ihedinobi2:
Actually, there's more to Ecclesiastes than the idea that Solomon was knocking life. It's one full document where Solomon explained what life is when you look at it horizontally and thus why it only works to look at it vertically.

It's a beautiful book, not nearly the depressing story of futility and meaninglessness that we tend to make it out to be. Perhaps at some point we'll discuss it more fully.

As for the meaning of life... Life is harmony, music, beauty. Life is good. Life is relationship and interaction. Life is connection and edification and mutual benefit. But that's an absolute meaning. Life here on earth is actually school. We're learning the harmony and beauty and music that life is here. That's why we're here. We're here to learn to value relationship, how to build them and the proper place to put each person.

Remember Jesus's new commandments? You shall love I AM your God with everything in you and everything that you are and you shall love the next human to you like your own self.

That is the same as the meaning of Life.

A wise man once said 'people accept you for your value'. You are valuable only to the extent of usefulness. Another wise man said 'the love of one's neighbour is triggered by the fear of the neighbour' If my neighbour is more powerful or as powerful as I am, isn't it safer for me if he loved me as he loved himself or rather believed that?! It is to my advantage. Same with loving God, people fear God so much that they hope for his love even if it means a reciprocal love.

It is easier for people facing enduring suffering to believe that their harsh lives are schools.