₦airaland Forum

maclatunji: Read my last post. Human knowledge of the universe is like the case of the 6 blind men of Indostan http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It cannot be totally accurate, cannot suffice and at some point faith has to come in.

In essence you find faith more useful than knowledge and most of your reasoning is based on faith.

In the light of what joshthefirst has said about faith being absolute trust in God, do you toll that line?

^^

No not the same way, rather the descendants of Adam and Eve are suffering from the punishment reserved for the crime and are not victims of the sin.

*lmao*

1. You can not make a general declaration that all things have an origin, a natural question to that is why. Your premise is arbitrary.

2. So are you admitting God used a part of himself as both energy and material for the universe?

* how do you know God is directly behind the big bang?

1. To claim there must be a particular origin for all things is begging the question and an arbitrary premise. It lacks a justification.

2. I assume you mean to say, God used a part of himself to create the universe?

1. To claim there must be a particular origin for all things is begging the question and an arbitrary premise.

2. I assume you mean to say, God used a part of himself to create the universe?

^^
What will be the relevance of Faith if human knowledge suffices?

OLAADEGBU: GWG said: "Is abortion wrong in cases of rape, incest or when it threatens the mother's life?"

Response:

It's wrong to kill the baby for the crime of the father. If the mother's life is in danger, the standard procedure is to have a cesarean and save the lives of both the mother and child. Not to kill the baby. Incest is against the law, so again, you shouldn't kill the baby for the crime of the father.

What do you have to say about the descendants of Adam and Eve suffering for the crimes and sin of their ancestors (Adam and Eve)!

Deep Sight: I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

Is there actually a self?! I very much doubt it.

The idea that the human body is inhabited by some semblance of a spirit is deceptive. To believe a person is an open book with a clear mind with its clear deliberations, intention and direct motives, is a poor understanding of human nature.

Rather man is a collective with distinct layers of personalities, coloured perceptions, a bubbling subconscious lying beneath the surface, and deep unconscious drives and motives. There was really no self, no single unitary mental state.

The senses can not be treated individually, they will collapse. Neither can man's interpretative/perceptory faculties be isolated from the senses. Nor biochemical processes with man's mental state.

The stark reality with the understanding of linear time, is the point in which the universe is purportedly created and this present moment, will never approach from the infinite past.

Hence Eternity is not compatible with linear time.

Although they might be ordinary words, yet they present assume a philosophical meaning. It becomes needful to clarify:

1. What is Something? Doesn't this actually mean unspecified object, entity? Are we led to believe this is a refernce to matter? Does this accommodate ideas and concepts?

2. What is Nothing? This can be said to be "something" as it relates to a concept. Platonists would readily believe Nothing as a concept is one of true reality.

@mactunji

What happens to Faith, when human knowledge grasps the concept of God?

@joshthefirst

1. The repetitive problem with your first starter argument is still that you have the unresolved issue of the design/complexity of this God you propagate. You tried solving the design/complexity of the universe by necessitating the starter, so also the starter's lack of cause dislocates your earlier argument that a starter is NECESSaRY. Being self existent does not solve the problem given the absurdity of infinity.

2. You are confronted with the problem of God creating the Universe out of nothingness. That is a contradiction and therefore patently false.

Sorry for my lateness.

^^ that will only mean God's perception of time is different from ours.

OLAADEGBU: You have eternity before and after time began and would have ended.

Your use of "after" and "before" betrays time itself. By time I don't mean wall clock.

OLAADEGBU: Someone Said: "Who made God?"

Suggested Answers:

God created the dimension of time, but He isn't subject to it. He dwells in eternity where there is no time, and it is eternity into which you will pass, when you pass on.

Take the Test -->www.NeedGod.com

Here is a difficulty, if God created time why is there a prior moment to the creation of time? Again, there was a period when there was no time and then after there was time. So there is an issue for you to address.

@joshthefirst

my stand is that God is the starter. The one who "caused" all things into existence in the beginning.

Ok, I would let you go on the causality premise. Still it is hypocrisy to believe the Universe requires a cause as a result of its complexity and in the face of a greater complexity (God) blindly deny the necessity of its cause. *EDITED

To my next objection, from what did God create the Universe and everything?

@joshthefirst

BUT this throws away your premise that everything is caused, in the light of what you are saying, not everything is caused ie God and probably artificial intelligence.

Now the suggestion that God caused everything becomes doubtful, as its not everything that is caused.

You don't still realise the problem of physicality. You have no idea of what the spiritual is like, you cannot rationalise nor grasp it. Hence you are left to build a spiritual heaven in physical and material terms.

Your inability to give a testimony on pure spirituality taints your credibility and that you do not have true knowledge of spirituality.

ThEre is obviously no gravity in heaven for the mansion to sit solidly. Except it floats.

Joshthefirst: what do you mean? we see complexity and balance in everything in existence.

because the complexity and direction is oposed to a simple cause. There is a creator. His touch show his attributes of power and intelligence.

Your second question is a repeat question again. Carefully read the op. The world cannot be self-existent from infinity, because the world itself is tending to disorder.

My question was God is far more complex than a simple gas (oxygen), and yet you expect such a gas to be necessarily created. Same goes for artificial intelligence, you would be unable to accept that such can arise naturally without any designs, yet God being far more complex has no cause?!

If so, the concept of causality is put into question! That causality is not generally applicable!

Having gone through most of the thread, I must ask, are we talking about incest, pedophilia and bestiality or we are supposed to talk on homosexuality?!

Homosexuality is definitely not inces.t nor pedophilia nor bestiality, and the moral objections thereof cannot operate against it.

Joshthefirst mentioned that marriages are for the sole purpose of reproduction. That is absolutely untrue. There is no such criterion imposed on marriages.

maclatunji: Mutation has never been in doubt even amongst human beings. Some people are naturally immune to HIV due to a mutation, this does not mean that they will become a different species from human beings altogether.

Albinism is a form of mutation. Shall we expect Albinos to become another species?

What you are essentially saying is that if those bacteria are there long enough, they will become multicellular organisms and may even be smart enough to debate with me after "millions of years" I say keep dreaming.

By the way, which bacteria would not want to become advanced organisms through "mutation"?

As for your "tree of life", do you think we are talking about Pokemon here? #Pikachu #Hehehehe

Now we both agree about mutation.

And even with the homo sapiens, there is still diversity. We have the Africans, Southeast Asians, Europeans, South Americans, Native Americans with their peculiar features - - meaning they had a common ancestor from whom, they have presently evolved away from.

A substantial number of mutation within a species can spin off another species, in that the new species has a result of the mutations taken place, can validly be distinguished as a different species in spite of the fact it came off an earlier species. For example HIV1 is different from HIV2.

So also a Grizzly Bear (ursus arctos) is of a different species from the Polar Bear (Ursus Maritimus)

*edited

The idea behind natural selection is that organisms mutate new information within their DNAs. Such mutations become permanent. And if every generation produces a unique mutation, over time the organism becomes different. It is through mutations new species emerge.

Now that the experiment proves mutation. We can examine the similarities among all life and trace the common source.

Nobody is saying bacteria turn to tadpoles overnight, rather there is a tree of life and all life comes from a source. Evolutionary biologists calculate million and millions of years for such changes.

@Mactunji explain this experiment.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

How do you explain mutation in this light.

The most important question is Marriage a right or privilege?

I think it is a right coupled with the rights to family and PRIVACY. However marriage in Nigeria is still defined as one man, one woman notwithstanding customary marriage and customary same sex marriages obtainable in parts of this country.

Everyone has the right to marry albeit a heterosexual union, and really homosexuals can marry the opposite sex.

This debate is actually on morality not marriage per se. Is it fair for natural heterosexuals to have a legally recognized union with the special incentives and leave homosexual unions bare without matrimonial rights?

Then there are God's wishes to consider. But considering the fact that this debate is NOT within the Church, everyone's moral opinion must be weighed.

And shouldn't everyone's right to privacy include the right to exhibit their own madness in so far it does not cross the boundary of privacy.

Homosexuality is clearly not bestiality or inces.t. Homosexuality is same sex intercourse/union and obviously bestiality and inces.t don't share that same meaning. It is very much possible to distance those two from homosexuality. Homosexuality is an independent topic of its own. The moral implication thereof are different.

Joshthefirst: go and read the convo between me and plaetton. God is self-existent and eternal. You're bringing in infinite regression once more.

You mean to say God was always intelligent, always conscious, and super! Yet a gas that lacks all that complexity, basic and simple must caused?!

Why can't something simpler be the final cause? How do we conceptualise life (that of God) to be without cause?

^^
LMaooo hope you know this ridiculous! Cos the same material greed on earth rears its ugly head in heaven.

It is said people without wealth and powerless on earth imagine an alternate universe wherein they enjoy imaginary wealth and power. And they in their minds punish the powerful and wealth on earth.

Joshthefirst: no, the final cause is not arbitrary, simple reasoning and pondering would show his attributes in creation. The universe or multiverse cannot be the final cause, as it is not conscious, the energy within it cannot be physically created from nothing, etc. All around us, our surroundings, we see purposelessness, but in our immediate vicinity, we see the blunt intelligence and direction on and of earth and our solar system. Why would you ignore and blindly deny all these things because of the desperation and tenacity with which you value your highly "convenient" atheistic worldview?

You should be better than that.

Ok, then what made God conscious and intelligent? Because conscious and intelligent beings don't drop from the sky.

€

Reyginus: No. God is not bound to do good. His nature makes it impossible for him to do evil.

To be BOUND to do anything is to be under a certain law. And if God really is God, then he cannot be under any law.

Ok. To be divine is to be beyond morality.

Joshthefirst: sorry, but this thread is for people who put effort in thinking.

People who actually think would realize that ignoring a first starter who must be "God" would have us end up in infinite regression. Figure it out, or move out.

Now we are at an important junction. We both agree an infinite regression would occur except there is a final cause. Most atheists are of the belief that such a final cause is arbitrary because its complexity goes unexplained. So atheists say the final cause can easily be God as well as the Universe or a Multiverse, since such a cause is arbitrary.

[quote author=Manhunter™]^^^ It's part of the mystery that is God.[/quote]One can easily say the same about anything, ie the Universe. The reasoning process must be strict. If all things must be caused, so be it.

texanomaly: What's the fun I'm that?

Assuming there is no fun in that, designing presumes a preexisting world with its own physical laws, which the designer must observe. For example a car manufacturer can not build a car if he does not consider the laws and principles of motion