₦airaland Forum

KDK:
@nferyn,
Before I start my discussion on God and the evidences supporting His existence, could you please name 5 scientists who in your own personal opinion are very fundamental to science especially science as we know it today?

If you want scientists, I'll exclude nutwases like Freud, because what he did was anything but science .

I'll put them in order of importance (in my opinion, that is)

1. Charles Darwin
2. Isaac Newton / Albert Einstein
3. Maxwell
4. Niels Bohr
5. Karl Popper (not a scientists strictly speaking, but extremely important to scientific thought)

Drusilla:
Oh. Really? Europe is a secular democracy. Mother Earth save the queen, eh? That's right, God save the queen.

That's only a nominal attachement to religion you'll find in some European countries (mind you, the UK is not really representative for Europe). In practice, European societies are far more secularised - except maybe for the loonie twins government of Poland - than anything you'll find in the US.

@ KDK - - OFFTOPIC --
If you want some more background on me being here, the following thread should help:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-2598.0.html#msg91683

nonslike:
@nferyn ,
I think all KDK is asking is for you to explain what the temporal dimension is.

Just time. Question is what his intention is by asking me to explain it. I just don't see it's relevance. I'm sure though KDK will explain.

KDK:
Could you please tell me a little bit about the temporal dimension? I want to learn more. Just tell me whatever you know about it, it doesn't have to be an expert's knowledge.

What's your point exactly?

KDK:
hmmmm, good use of words. Applause applause. Contrary to what you thot, I was not declaring victory. Rather, I was commending your sound argument.

And I was just joking, this is not a contest, is it?

KDK:
Some people argue but without reason to argue. But in your case, I see intellectualism. An open mindedness to learn new things.
At the end of our discussion,there will only be one outcome;which is that you will know your creator in a better way.

I wonder. From my - rather limited - knowledge, all I can conclude uptill now is that the introduction of God in our understanding of reality is mostly unfalsifiable and less parsimonious. In other words, entirely unnecessary.
Now, I'm open to new evidence and insights because I still have trouble understanding why otherwise intelligent human beings feel a deep need to believe in God.

KDK:
Let me start by asking you to tell me the number of dimensions you know and tell what each dimension consists.

I don't understand why that is relevant, but in my day-to-day life, I deal with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. However, these are just good for mapping reality and they're not really in my mode of thinking.I know that in modern theoretical physics, they deal with more dimensions, but that's a field that I do not have the qualifications (and maybe the intelligence) for to properly assess.

KDK:
I can't believe that I am meeting an atheist that is not arguing for the sake of argument but one that actually knows what he is talking about. However, quantum physics is another story entirely. Once again, I applaud your strong sense of analysis.Thanks

I wouldn't declare victory just yet, I just [i]luuuv [/i]to argue (our dear admin even changed my screen name into argument at one time)

Why would you call quantum physics an entirely different story? The indeterminate nature of reality at it's lowest level indicates that chance events are very real and that the classical mechanistic worldview with neat cause-effect relations is really just a limitation of our inate human characteristics. Maybe time is linear to us because we can only perceive few dimensions of reality. That of course could be interpreted as an explanation for God's intervention and allows faith to be aligned to reason, but then one needs to leave behind the symplistic literalist interpretations some people make of their religious traditions. On the other hand, introducing God as an explanatory factor is entirely unnecessary

Now, where would that leave God? Well, at very least beyond any attempts at understanding His nature and as such completely inconsequential for our lives (if you accept the nature of the divine to be on another plane entirely from the physical world). The God as described and portrayed in the holy books of the main monotheistic religions is an antropomorphic creature that is in contradiction both with logic and the laws of nature. On top of that there is no convincing evidence in favor of His existence.
What is a reasonable person to do?

@ KDK
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in predestination. Quantum Physics is sufficient evidence that predestination really doesn't exist.
On the other hand, for people that believe that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, they can only logically conclude that predestination is real and that free will is just a smokescreen. Any other position would mean that they don't truly believe God to be omniscient and omnipotent.
omniscience means having perfect knowledge of past, present and future, omnipotence means having the ability to make anything to be as you want
if God has perfect knowledge and all encompassing power, one can only conclude that everything that happens happens exactly as God wants and intends it to be, even future events = no free will

Predestination follows logically out of the omniscient (all seeing) and omnipotent (all powerful) properties of God. That of course contradicts the free will people supposedly have in the Christian worldview.
Your can't have your cake and eat it.

iice:
@nferyn, Fangs you say? Please post a pic of the fangs, i wan see am

No pictures, sorry. Us vampires don't like the light; We hide in the shadows

Nothing symbolic. Haven't you seen my fangs? I dare you

Tom & Aicha: ready for another schoolyear (yep, same [i]space [/i]jeans)

Tom: back to school. Why do I have to get up so early?

Bobbyaf,

You seem to be very persistent in your attacks against evolution. What you have done up till now is bring forth so called evidence against the TOE. All of your evidence [/i]has been thoroughly rebutted.
You seem to be quite certain that creationism offers a better explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. Now, here's your chance, instead of attacking the TOE with fake arguments and [i]evidence, why dont't you bring some evidence in favor of creationism? Some time ago, I created a thread especially for that purpose. Why don't you take up the challenge and present your evidence?
If you cannot do that satisfactory, it only means that you have no case at all.

I agree. I will stop posting pictures of the supreme commander of the US of A. They are an embarrassment for all our brethren, the chimps. If there are any chimps on the board, my appologies