₦airaland Forum

hopefulLandlord:
Lane Craig

CMdunk35:
Inch should be taken figuratively.

Tealcrestmedia:
Don't mind these idf aslekas.

Looks all scripted if you ask me and it's not far from the typical isreali behavior, lies upon lies.

Angelfrost:
Those overrated idiots won't get past Semi-finals.

They managed to get to finals last time because other teams were not serious.

Princedapace:
And south Africa played with fully home based players. I'm proud of them. They are investing heavily on their league which is showing result. Coming third at Afcon and challenging fully European based players this way. Weldone SA. More money into Ur league

CMdunk35:
Do you know that if the earth was an inch closer to the sun, we'd all burn up immediately? And if the earth was an inch farther from the sun we'd freeze to death. The earth is in its perfect position.

LordReed:
Your intuition is worthless in this matter. You are like the primitives who intuited that a god was hurling lightning but today we know no god is doing that. Leave primitive thinking behind, we've passed that stage.

IronGalaxy:
No, it's not! With you guys, it's beyond love and respect! it's worship and obsession!. When you hear a grown Nigerian man yearning for a re-colonization that can't be "healthy" can it? when a road is being built in South Africa and you hear Nigerians say it's because of whites, that has dangerous implications because it simply means you don't trust or have belief in yourselves to accomplish anything. After all, you'll always yearn for the absence of white people. it's an esteem issue rather than the "love and respect" you're purporting

Sheuns:
He can’t. Florentino Perez no send any player. Mbappe is coming to Madrid not as a world best player. If you do anyhow at Madrid, you will be humbled.

DeepSight:
I taya oh.

Horrible fella long time. How u dey.

GodisStriking:
You only know part of the story actually the Romans did make Jesus into a god but Arianism proceeded the Romans and Jesus was just the Jewish king not God.

Joy2dworldxyz:
What image are you talking about?
So I should keep the image of Satan because my ancestors kept and preserved it?

BJanta:
Bum. Which statute can be more historic than that of JESUS? You must have been born a FOOL .

GodisStriking:





That's the Orthodox doctrine. There are other doctrines where not only is Joseph is the father but Yesihua himself is a father. And no Yesihua is not God. The Orthodox version was the glue that held together the Empire because people need to believe in something bigger than human so Jesus became God. But there is only one God the Creator. It's what separated Monotheism from Pagan religion.

Quintessence44:
I wonder if 'Joseph' really believed her story.

GodisStriking:
Christianity is not a white man's religion. The early Jews and Christians were brown skinned curly hair and dark eyes.

Dennisochampa:
I leave you and God to settle that.. E no concern me

Dennisochampa:
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life....

Onyiiobi7735:
Business man feeding fat on the gullibility of religious fools.
His books are 95%about material possessions and prosperity, ditching the real Message of Repentance and Salvation.

AnCorner:
Watch this interview: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7mzLC2KdcP/?igsh=MW9icmZyZmhqZ2g2Zw==

The situation is not about Jihadists. They through the words Jihadists and Islamists around to lure people like you into thinking it's about some Muslim war. It's actually about European colonization, land grabbing, and expulsion of Palestians from their land to foreign countries. This didn't start recently. Israel has been carpet bombing Palentinians way before October 7. The only difference is that Hamas was able to get the world's attention this time, and people can see Israel's atrocities in real time on their phones instead of the usual propaganda by Western mainstream media. Israel has been killing thousands of Palestians yearly for decades. They have continuously been expanding their land by displacing Palestians, destroying their homes, and arresting thousands of Palestinian children yearly (They are the only country in the word that does that). They are white European colonizers who arrived in Palestine in 1948. They are Jewish converts who only want to grab more lands everytime. Their ministers have been saying this openly for decades. They are not interested in rescuing hostages. They are leveling entire buildings in neighborhoods. Someone with half sense can tell that rescuing hostages isn't their priority. Instead, they keep encouraging 2 million Palestinians to migrate to different countries so that they can take their remaining land.

gtown:
That is the problem of Paul worshippers, especially in Nigeria. You think the Jews care about you. To them, every Paul worshipper is nothing but a big pi..g. The Jews would any day prefer those you are using vulgar words against to you Paul worshippers. That was why they hanged your god on the cross, letting him die like a common cockroach while shouting for help.
Let it sink into your head that Hamas will relentlessly continue to fight those demons till Palestine's freedom is secured. They are not cowards like you Paul worshippers who are doing everything to befriend the Jews who killed your helpless God thousands of years ago. Yet to them, as earlier said, you are nothing but pi..gs.

Coolestguy2023:
Every gang up against Israel will fail.
Watch how God will punish those countries standing against Israel

JessicaRabbit:
If we're talking about an "Alien" creator, I'd expect it to be, well, alien! Not some vague, intangible, invisible entity that just so happens to have human-like qualities like consciousness and intentionality. If we're talking about a being capable of creating an entire universe, I'd expect it to be bound by different physical laws, not just conveniently invisible to our detection methods. I wouldn't expect such a being to "look" like anything, precisely because our understanding of "looking" is bound by our physical reality. But I would expect some form of empirical evidence, some tangible manifestation of its existence, something that doesn't rely on philosophical hand-waving and hypotheticals.



You're still chasing your tail here. I already told you that software and spirits are fundamentally different. Software, as I mentioned earlier, is a series of instructions that a machine interprets, with observable effects and testable results. It's a product of human ingenuity and can be studied, replicated, and improved upon. Spirits are extraordinary claims that require, well, extraordinary evidence. You can't just say "God is real, just like software" and expect me to nod in agreement. Regarding your Aboriginal man example, I'd say he's correct in demanding evidence, but his understanding of software might be limited. I'd explain to him that software is a human-made creation, not a physical entity inside the computer. Take note of this fundamental distinction! It's a set of instructions that makes the computer do things. I'd use an analogy like a recipe book: just as a recipe book contains instructions to make a cake, software contains instructions for the computer to perform tasks. But, I'd also tell him that demanding evidence for extraordinary claims is a universal principle, and it applies to all claims, not just software. So, if someone claims a magical spirit lives inside the computer, I'd ask for evidence, just as I would for any other extraordinary claim.

You've continuously implied that God is a being that exists outside the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, yet you've refused to demonstrate how we can even discuss or understand this entity using our human language and reasoning, which are bound by those very laws. Even if we assume that the cause of the universe's expansion is unknown, it's a huge leap to attribute it to a supernatural entity. The Big Bang theory is well-supported by observational evidence from many fields of science, and it's a natural phenomenon that can be explained by physical laws. We may not know what triggered the expansion, but that's a gap in our knowledge, not a justification for inserting a deity.



A washing machine's function, unlike the universe's existence, can be traced back to human ingenuity and scientific principles. We have empirical evidence of human innovation and problem-solving at play.

If you're unwilling to accept the analogy, that's okay, but don't pretend it's because you're unaware of computer programming. That's a very dishonest red herring. The real issue is that you're struggling to provide empirical evidence for your divine programmer claim. So, let's get back on track: where's the evidence for this cosmic programmer? Stop hiding behind a veil of ignorance. Confront the logic and your lack of evidence head-on!



You're pretending to ask a question, while actually trying to shift the burden of proof. Another class act from you, and I'm not buying it.



You're the one who claimed atheists on Nairaland twist definitions, so the onus is on you to provide evidence.



Of course, I disagree with the implication that the only two options are:

(1) A computer was brought to Mars by intelligent creatures.

(2) A computer evolved from Martian soil over trillions of years.

Agreeing with you here would be tantamount to committing a false dichotomy. Again, you're making me repeat myself! What about other possibilities, such as:

(3) A computer was created by a previously unknown form of Martian life that doesn't fit our conventional definition of "intelligent creatures"?

(4) A computer-like device was deposited on Mars by a natural process, like a meteorite or a comet, carrying materials from another celestial body?

(5) A computer was left on Mars as a remnant of an ancient civilization that has since gone extinct?



It's a good thing we do not apply your sort of logic to other complex phenomena like gravity or electromagnetism, else humanity would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Just because we can't directly observe or measure something with our senses doesn't mean it requires a supernatural explanation. Our understanding of the world should be guided by evidence and testable theories, not gaps in our current knowledge.



Atheism isn't about being ignorant of deities. It's about recognizing the lack of empirical evidence for their existence. Similarly, just because we can't fully understand dreams doesn't mean we must accept your dream as objective reality. That's a textbook case of the argument from ignorance fallacy. So, the question remains: where's the empirical evidence for your extraordinary claim?



The heat death of the universe suggests that usable energy will eventually run out, not that the fundamental laws of cause and effect take a permanent vacation. Consider that even in a universe where stars have all burned out and everything's lukewarm, gravity will still pull objects together, black holes will still evaporate (albeit very slowly), and particles will still interact. Cause and effect might be sluggish, but they won't be taking a dirt nap just yet. More importantly, the heat death scenario only applies if the universe is finite. If it's infinitely vast, well, there could always be some crazy corner where stars are still forming, defying the whole "everything fizzles out" shebang. The vastness of the cosmos is a mind-bender, after all. Therefore, the jury's still out on the infinite regress question. One thing is certain though: your attempt to tie it neatly to the heat death with some philosophical duct tape simply won't hold.



When I say "invent," I don't mean that humans conjured up mathematical concepts from thin air. Rather, we developed a system to describe and apply those concepts. The laws of mathematics, as we understand them, are a product of human cognition and ingenuity. You're just attempting to draw a distinction without a difference. The physical principle of gravity existed before Newton, but the equation F=ma is a human invention. We didn't "discover" the equation inscribed on a stone tablet in the cosmos. We derived it through observation, experimentation, and mathematical abstraction. Similarly, the relationship between numbers and quantities is an objective feature of the universe, but the number system itself, with its symbols, operations, and rules, is a human construct. We didn't "discover" the number 4; we created a symbol and a concept to represent the idea of "four-ness". What this clearly means is that: without a mind to create and utilize mathematical concepts, they remain mere abstractions, devoid of meaning or significance. The universe may contain patterns and structures, but it's up to us to recognize, describe, and apply them through the lens of mathematics.



The question isn't whether logic exists independently of our realization or not. The question is whether logic has an objective existence beyond our tool-making minds. We create logical frameworks to describe and make sense of the world, much like we create maps to navigate territories. The laws of logic, like the laws of physics, are descriptive tools, not inherent properties of the universe. Logic exists because we've realized its applications and continue to refine it as a tool.



You're mistaking a mathematical concept for the actual state of the universe. dE=0 doesn't mean the party's over, just that the energy's evenly distributed. The molecules are still vibrating, just at a different frequency.



Trying to imply that your critics are "ignorant fools" only weakens your argument, not mine. At best, you sound like a toddler throwing a tantrum because his blocks won't defy gravity.

Anyways, now that you've conceded that consciousness isn't the key to cause and effect, then what is it? Is there a divine breakfast fairy who judges the toast's doneness with a celestial timer? Or perhaps a pantheon of carb-loving deities residing within your toaster, arguing over the perfect shade of golden brown?



Okay. So how do you explain the emergence of complex life forms through non-biological means?



Projecting...



Well, first of all, I should probably point out here that the notion that matter was created 13.8 billion years ago is a rather narrow view of the universe. What about the possibility of eternal inflation, or the concept of quantum fluctuations giving rise to our universe? The origins of the universe are still a topic of much debate and exploration in the scientific community.

And as for the symphony of subatomic particles, I'd argue that it's precisely the emergence of complex systems from simple rules that makes the universe so fascinating. The conductor, in this case, is the laws of physics themselves. Regarding the swirling vortex of pure information, I'm not making a bet on possibility. I'm merely highlighting the limitations of our current understanding. Information, in the context of the universe, can be thought of as the intricate web of relationships between particles, forces, and energies. It's a bit like asking whether a melody can exist without a mind to perceive it. The music is still there, even if no one is listening. The question of whether information can exist without a mind is a classic example of the mind-body problem. I'd argue that information is an emergent property of the universe, much like consciousness itself. It's a product of complex interactions, not a fundamental aspect of reality that requires a mind to exist.



Scientists have already made tremendous progress in understanding the processes that lead to the self-organization of complex systems, from the origins of life to the development of complex technologies like computer chips. They've also made progress in understanding the neural correlates of consciousness, the evolution of cognitive abilities, and the complex interplay between brain, body, and environment. It's called science, and it's based on evidence, experimentation, and rigorous testing, not wishful thinking or divine intervention. So tell me why, TenQ. Why in the world, do I still need to invoke an imaginary concept and shoehorn it into a discussion where it has little to no relevance?

SIRTee15:
To my understanding, paganism mean religions outside of the main ones and possibly could refer to animist religions.
.
I don't think traditionalists consider idols deity and most don't worship them.
They idols are mostly symbolic representation of the unseen deity but they are not deity themselves.

That's why I'm asking why those who kiss a stone for symbolic reason accuse traditionalist as idolaters?

FreeStuffsNG:
Russia is today, in utter disgust for humanity, pummeling Ukraine with a significant population of ethnic Isreali,