₦airaland Forum

truthislight: Is it now you are coming to this level ?

Some of us have done that and have found the way round man's limitations when it comes to God, and it was God himself like a father will do, that provided that book you call "book of men", to educate us about things we would not have known otherwise to help us learn about him.



"No man hath seen God at any time; but the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom position of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18).
.........................

With that ^, the reality i see in nature has been substantiated and i learn and come to make sense of God.

I invite you to cure your infinite regress with reason from reality/facts around us and then join me to make sense from what the bible says.

Peac

you have not still answered whether or not God can be comprehended

Joshthefirst:

Chicken-eagle direct offspring reproduction is ridiculous na. What I meant is that speciation occurs, but speciation is on the boundaries of kind and cannot overrun that boundary.

What I meant is that no matter the variation or adaptation or speciation a kind-group of organisms undergo, they will still remain under the said kind group; birds will remain birds, toads will remain toads. It is ridiculous to assume that kinds change over the years.

Hope you know that chickens and eagles are of the same kind, yet different species.

It is apparent that your kind classification is entirely inaccurate and poor.

Ok I agree with yo, defining the physical is nonsensical.

Joshthefirst: Hybridization will almost always be the result of cross species reproduction.

Different species may not produce viable offspring(wolves and domestic dogs can do so, but will not naturally because of different behaviours and ecological niches I think)

So different species will not reproduce(generally) without human intervention.


But my point is that in all the different species we have of say birds today, from the ostrich to the harpee, they are all birds(of the bird kind), and they will continue to be birds.

Joshthefirst

Iwas not talking about hybridization. You said earlier that animals reproduce offsprings of their kind. You admitted there can be a number of species within a kind. Hence I'm tempted to ask: can an animal from a specie reproduce an offspring of a different specie but of the same kind. Example, a chicken having an eagle as its offspring WITHOUT hybridization.

Reyginus: What is the legal definition of murder?


Which law are we talking about here?

Do we now agree completely because it is allowed by the law even when we can see for ourselves that a man shouldn't decide when another dies.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing. Note that some killings are considered lawful. Euthanasia if legally permissible, would not be murder.

There are many examples parent-minor relationship, principal-agent relationship, even employer employee relationship. A person's consent is satisfactory in lieu of another's.

^^^
Loooool!! But God is light, so if light had a beginning, possibly God did!

Reyginus: And you don't think that the minute a medical practitioner goes against protecting life, he is no longer a one but a murderer? Can a profession go against itself ans still remain the same?

It is not within the legal definition of murder, so the doctors exempt from murder.

Bad advice. Another person's should be determined be based on the consent of another. Hmmm. How you don't even see it as evil I don't know.

It is a different thing if you do not have money to maintain the patient. In that case, you take him back home and spend his last moments with him. But if because you cannot stand seeing him the way he is, it is not a good enough reason.

The Law is not unfamiliar with cases whereby the consent of a different person is used in lieu of one's. In such cases it becomes appropriate.

JMAN05: That is the extent science can can go. they cant go spiritual. That is why they cant explain who/what caused the process to begin.

I saw that as a metaphysical question.

^^
The treatment is graceful death, which is a relief in the circumstances. Many people across ages and times, have used suicide as a pyschological relief. Hence its unimportant haggling over the metaphysical state of a deadman.

@joshthefirst,

Let me make it easier, can a specie of dog reproduced another specie of dog within the same kind without any hybridization and human intervention.

^^ some patients will be conscious and be able to express their wishes. Such wishes should be honoured.

However some patients are irredeemably unconscious, yet in vegetative state. Euthanasia should be available, based on the beliefs and consent of the family.

^^
I meant naturally, without human intervention

truthislight: What was that ^ ?

Who was he talking to ?

What was he talking about ?

Was he addressing what we have been discussing on this thread ?

Is he lost ?

Does that make sense ?

*sigh* smh.

Guy, you are on the wrong thread.

Kai!

Please, read from page zero to undate youself, then you can knock on me.

Lol. Smh. No wonder!

*sigh*

Can man comprehend God?

Reyginus: It is not really hinged on that. It is but a possibility whose efficacy we must not neglect. It is possible, my friend.

But my argument is hinged on why a person by committing evil, and sending a person into non-existence, will claim to have alleviated his pains even though he is not alive to experience it.

Read my response to logicboy.
Just as real as it sounds, he is allowed to die. The words are simple, I need not explain anything.

The act of killing is not immoral, rather the intent /bad faith is what has the moral weight. Also, if you pay a bit attention, self defence is basically murder in good will! So also euthanasia, it is administered in good faith.

For example people in the most advanced stages of Parkinson disease, find themselves useless to themselves and their society, and worse they feel the worthlessness and the lack of power/strength. They lose their self worth.

Regyinus barks at the wrong tree. Euthanasia suggests terminal diseases, its moot arguing about emotional imbalance etc. As all sufferers of debilitating terminal diseases, there is hopelessness, and futility at clinging to life. They reach advanced stages of the diseases, that they become "vegetables"

Now, for these people, as I have said earlier, dignity and self value becomes a concern. Doctors in their duty to care for their patients in spite of the hopelessness, administer dignifying means to die.

Lordlexyy: [/quote][quote author=OLAADEGBU]The remarkable vision about God's conversation with the devil could only have been given to Job whom I believe is the original author, and by special revelation after his suffering and subsequent restoration.

Hmmmmmmmm
But you now agree God did not expressly tell Job about the conversation with the devil and test, however in the absence of that, you choose to believe that some special form of revelation must have been used.

^^^

I have read the entire book of Job, and neither in those verses you mentioned, did God tell Job about his conversation with the devil!

God didn't even tell Job it was a test.

Bidam: Believe it or not God speaks to people.He spoke to Job about these things.

Where did God tell Job and his conversation with the devil?! Or god told you in your bedroom?!!

truthislight: Nope!

This below is the basis for the way forward:

"For every house is builded by someone; but he that built all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4).
.................

See men, all you can do to have a stand against ^ that rational conclusion or counter it is to show that there is no purposeful design in nature to sustain life, that every thing, i mean every thing is chaos.

Otherwise, go and sleep and oil your wounds.

You are a fish in water, how are you able to comprehend land animals living out of water. God as you have said numerous times, is incomprehensible to us being that God is transcendental, and similar to fish out of water.

Therefore you cannot say claim/say God exists! The best you are is an agnostic! Unconscious agnostic

JMAN05: "nothing comes uncaused from nothing in the physical. That is a fact that the future cannot change, unless you want to go through your twists like you twisted evolution from nonliving material through."

Simple sentence, you cant understand. God is not in the physical/visible realm.

Oh! But isn't the question on existence generally rather than one part of existence -- physical?!

truthislight: I see, you really lack what to say to defend that thing you people do say.

What you dont have the capacity to comprehend, how do you know it does not exist ? Smh for going in circle.

Accused me all you like, lie against me all you like, the truth stands, sorry men/woman.

What we have said so far did really fly over your head.

That the fish cannot comprehend how man lives out of water and remains alive now means that man does not live out of water because the fish cold does not have the capacity to know.

So this means God is incomprehensible and yet unknowable! I just want to see how you people (jman and truthlight) will turn around to clamim God exists despite being incomprehensible.

JMAN05: This your question is laughable. I dont believe this is coming from you. It makes no sense. If you know what is spiritual realm, then unlock your brain.

"What is physical" doesn't make sense?! Geeez! If an average Joe walks around and bumps into spiritual entities, how would he know they are spiritual?! Jman I doubt if you have much to say.

truthislight: I dont know why you keep going back to what we have sorted out that it is impossible for the designed to comprehend the mind/existence of the designer ?

Naturally, it is impossible!

Hence your infinite regress is a function of ignorance!!!

Can you tell the life experience of your father and mother befor you were born if you were not brief ? Impossible!

Why keep deluding yourself then with the notion that you can decipher the creator of the univers existance ?

The implication thereof is you can't use the Universe as proof for god's existence. And further, it is impossible to know/understand/comprehend God?!

I think you have simply shot yourself in the foot.

@Regyinus

You still didn't talk about placebos.

But not all diseases are life threatening, yet doctors treat those; so also not all diseases are curable, yet doctors treat those. Hence it doesn't go well with your life preservation theory. Althought doctors do preserve life but above all, they care.

In the 18th century, most of their patients died, and they even made their deaths likelier, yet the doctors still cared.

OLAADEGBU: Read about God's monologue in chapters 38-40 to find out whether He answered your objections or not.

How would job have known about God and the Devil's conversation?? And please tell God's answer to Job.

You are not aware that light is either matter or wave, it is a physical object. Light particles are physical, that's contrary to God's spiritual nature.

^^

But he didn't know about God's conversation with the devil and the true cause of his sufferings, so how could he have written that?!!!

So they are all murders?! They are all termination of life?!

FOLYKAZE: Euthanasia is termed as 'assisted suicide'. The person assisting or aiding the suicide is a murderer.

No emotion here

you did the exact opposite of what I warned against. What do you think is Murder, then distinguish it from self defence, defence of property, manslaughter, suicide.

Reyginus: Is your definition of medicine any different from restoring life through therapeuthic means?

Please, what do you mean by: ' Placebos are not the immediate solution/cure to the particular disease'?

I don't think there any dignity in destroying the entire mass of the human body because of a particular inhomeostasis. A body has to exist or be alive for it to have dignity. Non-existent entities know nothing about it, because nothing is.

To put it in a proper sense, it is the same thing as saying that a dead man is better off dead than when he is sick and alive. After death he loses consciousness, so the question of happiness or sadness cannot be appropriated to him.

I doubt if you really meant to say "restore life", cos we are not talking about Jesus.

You fail to see the diverse nature of medicin. Take a look at amputation, it seems destructive, yet it is a curative procedure, so also placebos. They don't cure anything actually, rather have a profound psychological effect.

Euthanasia as a medicine is applicable only in cases of hopelessness, terminally and destructive diseases, wherein the sufferer loses human dignity and an appreciation for self. For them the disease has done its worst, and the sufferer is in an irredeemable state. He might have possibly lost his cognitive faculty.

Ordinarily everyone has a right to life, so as right to die. The right to die is so much so a natural right, because it is reaily at his instance. Euthanasia is an extension of this natural right in an irrdeemable diseased state.

@folykaze

^^
What makes euthanasia, self defence/defence of property different from murder is context and circumstance, so don't overtwist it to invoke undue emotions.

^^
Then we don't agree as to what medicine is.

Placebos are not the immediate solution/cure to the particular disease, yet they are curative medicine.

Euthanasia restores the human dignity which the sufferer lost.

Is there gravity and light in Heaven?