₦airaland Forum

aariwa:
Whites like each other and do everything possible to avoid killing themselves unlike black people. If Russia were a black or middle eastern country America would have totally destroyed and burnt down Moscow to rubbles by now

In the same thread where we are discussing how the Russian leader killed his own citizen because of politics? You need to think before you respond sometimes.

basilico:
What point and by who ? I've read nothing sensible enough to retract anything I've put down.

You showed an ad for the property fromBEFORE he bought it that showed a value that was 2x more than what Trump paid for it. You know what that means to your talking point that's why you responded with Does it matter? LoLz. You are so bad at this.

basilico:
I refer you to Wikipedia. Sometimes learn to do some background checks before dropping gotcha queries.

If you know it is a gotcha why are you referring me to anything? You talking pointwas already blown out of the water stop trying to save face.

basilico:
Does it matter?

LoLz! You fold as easily as wet tissue paper. All it takes is one incisive question to destroy your talking points.

basilico:
A certain prime property listed 42 years ago at $20m is now worth $18-27m.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/16/garden/post-home-for-sale-for-20.html

Shove your propaganda sources where the sun don't shine.


Mar a Lago.

How much did he buy the property?

DeepSight:
Time or no time, I think you still fail to grasp the simplicity of the point that an infinity of steps cannot have a conclusion or result in anything. It never ends, and thus goes nowhere and results in nothing.

Now with your second paragraph you are conflating issues. I will tell you why I say so. Yes, obviously one can have an infinity of fractions in any number and thus even an infinity of moments in any second or minute. But you see, that only exists within a construct of the mind - such as numbers are. No infinity is actually proven to exist in material things. And yet again, no infinite amount of of causes can cause anything because they never end and thus go nowhere. Thats what the quote I got for you from Quora was saying. When you have a real world, an actual here and now, it could not have arisen from an infinity of causes. Such a chain will remain suspended in perpetual succession and lead to nothing.

Let me just add a little something to this. Have you really reflected on the idea of an infinite regression and considered if it is possible, conceivable or has any real meaning whatsoever?

Because it is nothing but fantasy. Worse fantasy than time travel.

I drew up a long response but internet connectivity stuff made lose it and I have been too busy to rewrite another one. When I am less busy I will try again.

Dynamicboss:
Are you ready to challenge your brain and put your visual skills to the ultimate test? We bring to you a mind-boggling puzzle that only the highly genius people can solve this accurately.

Copied!

Cc: mynd44

24

kingar:
I can boldly walk into any chemist or supermarket to buy condom but pastors cannot, either a customer or the sales person will recognize you na why them Dey run am raw and easily gets obirin pregnant.

I wonder why any adult would be ashamed to buy condom.

Bliztzer:
So it news to you that many people are aware of what is coming?

Most people wants to use logic to explain everything but somethings are outside logic, no matter how hard you put it in the box of logi, it will never fit in.

Aware of a mythical sky wizard who you say has been coming soon for nearly 2000years? Is that what they are aware of? LoLz.

HISSCRIBE1995:
How would you feel as an atheist at the point of death knowing fully well that life is full of unintentional mistakes, and your believes in the nonexistent of God could also end up being a mistake ; a mistake you would forever regret if it be so ?



Death might just be the greatest of all human blessings — Socrates

death might just be the greatest nightmare of an atheist - Hisscribe1995

(Please no insult was
intended by this comment )

I have faced death several times since becoming an atheist and never for once did I feel I needed to pray to your god.

Bliztzer:
Dooms day. There is always an element of truth behind every rumour.

So it is news to you that humans are afraid of death?

Bliztzer:
Dey there dey speak English, na people like you the day go catch. Mythic being abi? just dey play.

Which day? LoLz.

Lotechi:
Literally. Nigerians are sometimes too stupid to understand what is going on in the modern world.

I think it's a stupidity not borne of ignorance but of needing everything to fit into their beliefs. Jesusjnr2020 knows that Russia and North Korea has been threatening nuclear fire but he is going to look past all that diplomatic kerfuffle and tie it to his beliefs.

dinachi:
Infact, Trump can even seek justice on the basis of mistrial. You can see that this is a very punitive judgement. Evil people who do not know how else to stop him from winning the elections are deploying everything in their arsenal to destroy him because they know what will happen when he wins. As for appeal, yes, he can and will appeal. All those jargon about paying a hefty bond of 540 mil before he can appeal is nonsense. If doesn't happen anywhere in the world. The whole idea is to damage his image.

So why hasn't he filed an appeal on the E Jean Carroll case?

fergie001:
SOURCE

I have been dreading hearing this news.

Valar Morghulis, may he rest in peace.

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*
Well, it seems all over the place because I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.
By the way I was reading some of your debate with LordReed. Ouite erudite of you, except that "anthropologic" instead of anthropomorphic (Knownunknown was mocking you for it😆). As for the debate itself, unlike Reed, I can logically refute your central point (Which is why I always defeat him!).
And I thought this up all by myself. I didn't read it anywhere or told it by anybody.
Here goes (and don't read anything about my faith from any of it; it is purely intellectual):
An immutable element cannot trigger mutability without itself suddenly becoming mutable. Same applies to all corollaries of it: a self-existent cannot and will not suddenly start creating unless triggered either by change within itself or compelled by an external element. The other possibility is that the "creation" is within the self-exitent itself and have always been there.

As for nothing being something, well try imagining nothing. You can't. So we go abstract. "Nothing" in the abstract, which is the absence of anything, is still part of fabric of reality itself, a manifestation of existence - something!
Also, in quantum mechanics nothing is really something. "Vacuum energy" exists in nothing. The energy is not from particles or anything.

As for cogito, I was expecting you to ask how when I told you it was disproved but you kept mute. It was proved wrong not long after Descartes expounded it. Here goes. You can't prove the existence of something by starting with the assumption that the thing already exists. Thus the statement should be: "There is thinking therefore I am", which of course doesn't make any sense.

Always obsessing about defeating me. Enjoy your fantasies. Bwahahahahahaha!

FxMasterz:
I've answered your question. Your answer is in my question. If you can answer my question, then you have your answer. I didn't dodge anything. That's a false accusation.

Don't worry, I will start answering you the same way, let's see how soon you'll accuse me of dodging . LoLz.

FxMasterz:
The question itself is in itself the answer.

LoLz. Answer the question honestly if you can and stop playing games. You accused me of dodging questions but see this simple question that you are dodging as if it is bullet.

DeepSight:
Perhaps my words are not clear enough. I have sourced a quote from Quora which I hope will put across the point more clearly:

An infinite regress of causation is neither possible nor necessary.

Consider that you can never get to the end of an infinity, and for the same reason, we could never get here via an infinity of steps. Another way to look at it is that each step in a chain of causation takes time, no matter how small. So it would take an infinite time to get to the ultimate (so far) effect of the here and now, which is another way of saying: never. - Robin Craig. Scientist & Philosopher.

Please pay attention to the bold underlined.

Again there is NO TIME. You are thinking like the time locked being we are but a no time situation means a whole set of possibilities could exist that we can barely comprehend.

Do you agree that 2 and 1,000,000,000 are examples of an infinite set of numbers?

DeepSight:
You simply are not grasping that with an infinite regress no universe would happen. The chain of causation required to cause the universe would never end, and as such no universe would happen.

You are not grasping that in a no time situation everything could be happening all at once or in a permutation we can't even comprehend.

Very well, but that factor that initiates it cannot be an infinite regress otherwise it would simply never be initiated.

Yes but can you see that the possibilities expand in such a way that you are jumping the gun by not accounting for them.

FxMasterz:
Do you disbelieve everything you hear?

Look who is dodging question now. LoLz.

FxMasterz:
I even demonstrated this question with a fictional story I created a thread for, where I talked about some men who went on a long journey in the service of their village. I narrated that they got to a village where they were told that the king of one of the next villages beheads those who refuse to wear a red cap. Remember? I narrated how some of these men said such a king does not exist, and proceeded on that journey without a red cap. Remember that thread? It was on that same thread I spoke on the limitations of Science and why it's foolish to live one's life on assumptions regarding the future of his soul. I narrated that the wise ones, even though they do not have any means of verifying whether such a king truly exists, yet they had a red cap on in case.... Remember? And of course, they have nothing to loose. At least I remember very vividly that you engaged me on that thread.

You can't say you do not have any evidence of God except your spirit is dead. And if your spirit is dead, God has put the evidence of Himself in every man. You need to shut off that inner witness in order to embrace atheism. Every man has that inner feelings in the deep recesses of his mind that there's a Supreme Being somewhere worthy of worship. It is absolutely natural. And if you have shut off your inner witness, God still reveals Himself in nature and the invisible laws that govern the human life and the vast universe. Science discovered those laws, it didn't create them , and every law has a legislator. Laws never get enacted by accident. And if you refuse to see that, then He sent men into the world to teach people about Himself. The Devil brought many counterfeit gods to confuse men so that they'll lose sight of the true God, yet God still sent His Son to help you decide the truth in the midst of so many falsehoods.

Many miracles are happening around you daily by the finger of God. You choose not to see those miracles. When you hear of them, you say they're all lies. You refuse to go to places where God is demonstrating His Presence and revealing Himself to people. You read the wrong books that keep you in eternal bondage to Satan. Of course, Satan is the god of atheism whom atheists worship without knowing. You are inexcusable!. God has all His evidences scattered everywhere. You're the one who's foolish for ignoring them. God will still judge you for refusing to stick your neck out to find God. God is not your puppet who must come to merry you where you are. You can't put Him in a box.

If you want to see God, go search for God where He may be found. If others are finding Him, why not you? You'll be damn foolish when others in the hereafter begin to testify how they met God while you kept rebelling against God in hope that He'll understand that you cannot believe in Him because you have no evidence. As long as others are having evidences, you'll be the fool.

Do you believe everything you hear?

DeepSight:
A thing that is caused necessarily requires a trigger. In the scenario of an infinite regress, one cannot locate a trigger. A trigger is an event that has to occur at a definite point. An infinite regress provides no such point. Extending forever into the infinite past it goes backward in such a way as makes it impossible to locate an event.

To render this lucid, an analogy will suffice. Let us say that the event we are looking for a cause for is the movement of a ball into a goal post. As such, there is a need for the ball to be kicked into the goal post - that will be the definite cause.

But if we look to an infinite regress of causes - in order words, we need someone to give the order to the player to kick the ball, and we need another someone to give that person the instruction to give that order, and we need another person to give the permit to the person giving the instruction to give the order - and so on and so forth into an infinite regress - the ball will never get kicked - the event will never happen.

Now, this is a mere analogy, but variations of it have been used in philosophical thought to help us understand that where there is an infinite regress, there will be no resultant event ever. Therefore logic shows us that where there is a definite caused event, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

I sincerely hope this is lucid and crystal clear.

One crucial element you are not taking into account is this pre universe situation is not time delineated. No time means an infinite regress is very possible.

With an infinite cyclical chain we would be talking about a self existent thing, which has always existed and keeps cycling itself. Now not only have we agreed that the physical universe is not self existent, but I have given reasons why it cannot be - physical mutable things cannot be self existent.

A cyclical chain doesn't mean it is self existing, the chain itself could have been birthed by something else.

The universe not being self existent doesn't preclude it from being part of a chain of events cyclical or otherwise.

FxMasterz:
Oftentimes I've asked atheists like lordreed, maynman and jaephoenix a question which they always dodge, and I shall ask the same question here again against the backdrop of what Brian Cox said. Science is ever evolving and can not lay any claim yet to perfect knowledge or absolute knowledge. What science does not know is more than what science knows. That's why its grounds are always shifting. If science discovers the existence of God after you die, what shall be your fate? Science has been known to abolish previous theories and ideas in preference for new ones in the light of fresh discoveries. It's very foolish for anybody to rely on incomplete and imperfect scientific findings in absolution. Even staking your life on science that doesn't have the answers when you ask "What happens after death?"

Can you quote where you asked me these questions and I dodged it? LoLz.

If science discovers a god after I am dead what do you expect I'd be able to do? I'd be dead for Andromeda's sake. LoLz.

What is more stupid is believing stuff you have no evidence for. I'd rather apportion my confidence according to the availability of evidence. If a god exists and decides that my approach is wrong then that god is foolish.

DeepSight:
Are you seriously saying you don't know of the impossibility of an infinite regress in a causative chain?

I don't agree that infinite regress is impossible. Plus infinite regress is not the only way this thing could be, an infinite cyclical chain is a possibility, not to talk of other unknown possibilities.

DeepSight:
It seems to me you are not factoring the premises in proper order -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing
2. The Universe is Something and it exists
3. The Universe had a beginning, it is not eternal in the past
4. The root elements of the universe - the constituent energy and matter of which it is formed, also have a beginning and are not eternal in the past
5. We agree that a pre existing element must have caused the universe to be
6. An infinite regress of causative pre existing elements is not possible as you cannot have an infinite regress in a causative chain
7. Consequently there must per force be a necessary (permanent and self existent element) at the root of the causative chain for anything whatsoever to exist.

This is the rationale - and it is sound and secure reasoning.

I didn't agree to 6 & 7. Why can't there be an infinite chain of events? Also why does the chain need to be one direction? What if the chain was cyclical, infinitely cyclical? 6 doesn't get you out of explaining why the so many unknown possibilities are to be discarded in favour of a self existing element.

DeepSight:
What about the incident involving one Gideon Akaluka and Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

Oh I didn't forget that one, I didn't include it just so people can see just how far this problem has gone.

DeepSight:
Is this still an issue? If so buzz me via email. Sightdeep@gmail.com. I don't check the box, so let me know when sent.

I think the scare was resolved, I'll confirm.

Yeah it was resolved. Probably a misdiagnosis.

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*
😅 We are are just having an intellectual discussion, after having established the fact that we know almost nothing. There's possibly a super being hypnotist somewhere laughing hysterically at how stupid our "intellectual" discussion is

All I need is for you to show me you arrived at your laughing super being hypnotist. If it involves quoting Einstein or Musk or any other people you think give your view authority, you can stop quoting me cos I won't respond.

DeepSight:
Have you asked yourself how anything could possibly exist without something or the other being self existent considering that something cannot come from nothing?

Please dwell carefully and deeply on this.

Of course I have and my cogitations lead me to think there are probably many possibilities I have no conception of and I have very limited tools by which to figure out which of them is most likely. I don't think self existence is the only plausible mechanism for the existence of the "pre-universe thing" to put it simply.

PoliteActivist:
How about the possibility that everything has always existed but our particular reality was launched 13.8 billion years ago

Are you going to say anything more than say Matirx, quote Einstein and fanboy Musk?

DeepSight:
Are you referring to -

1. The statement that a self existent thing must exist for anything else to exist at all or -
2. My description of that self existent thing as God?

The first one first we can deal with the other later.