₦airaland Forum

Darlene babe: d proof is me, because he exist even in my breath. God is a spirit n spirit does not ve gender.God is very much alive n everywhere. dnt b decieve by false religion dat there is no God, because i know there is God n he is proofing itself to me everyday.

Ihedinobi: Oh you did

Where?

ooman: Still a fools reply . Who do you blame for the laxity in the car's security? The car or GM. Is that question too much for you to answer?

Ihedinobi: Laxity? What laxity?

Ihedinobi: It could be the operator's fault

ihedinobi: Uh huh. I need help because...?

Ihedinobi: What did I ask you that led to my fetching those posts?

Ihedinobi: Ok. What if the intelligence in question is building over its design?

Ihedinobi: Didn't this argument already die? You need me to go fetching posts again? Perhaps so you can deny them too?

Ihedinobi: Really?

Ihedinobi: Here he comes again with the five-year-old. Well, Mr Five-Year-Old, don't just say it, fault it.

Ihedinobi: These myths of yours, wheree exactly have you proved them to be so?

Ihedinobi: Ok. So nature as an abler designer proves God wrong by creating a perfect world? I'm a bit confused.

Ihedinobi: So what did you compare nature to to know that it's not perfect? That's just btw.

Ihedinobi: And your argument that it's the designer's fault is still without a foothold.

Ihedinobi: So where did you get that my God did as you said? From my argument? Or from your brain?

ihedinobi: So you only meant that improper operation could cost a system its objectives. Alright.

ihedinobi: Have I asaid anything that suggests an overnight change?

ihedinobi: And why can they not change because man broke off with God?

ihedinobi: Have I asaid anything that suggests an overnight change?

ihedinobi: Apparently, it's still you who does. The statement finished, "if you impress me with the need to..." Now, find a dictionary and check for other meanings of the word, "impress".

ihedinobi: Huh? Without destroying your arguments? Where?

ihedinobi: Anyway, I've done too much work for you already. You prove to me that I didn't give an answer and then I'll give you one. What's so hard about that?

ooman: Once again i ask, if the parameters fail, is it the fault of the designed system or the fault of the designer. Logic seem to be too much for you.

ihedinobi: Well, let's see just how sensible this question of yours is, shall we?

General Motors designs an automobile that is a great transportation machine and a "responsible" one. The car won't let you drive it if you're drunk. You have to exhale on the key and wait for the computee to decide that you don't have too much alcohol in your system to drive.

A high school kid crashes the car and barely survives the experience ............... blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh..........

ihedinobi: What did I say about you trying to obscure things with your "science"? What is the issue you're responding to here? Is it not the fact that you did an aboutface about your demand? And now, you want to cover it up with a pseudoscience lecture? How predictable.

ihedinobi: Anyway, as I have said, "spontaneous forming" is not evidence of the absence of a designer.

ihedinobi: Sure, you can ask anything you want. Just don't use your questions to distract from the issue.

ihedinobi: The issue here is that you required a species whose genome was built from scratch as proof of design. I gave you one and ever since I did, you've been doing your best to prove that your own requirements for proof were not good enough.

ihedinobi: Lovely! You take the liberty to describe my God as a complex, then you make me responsible to explain how He is complex. Lazy, dishonest atheist

ihedinobi: Huh?

ihedinobi: It started out as a clueless question and has morphed into a truly dishonest question. So, no, I'm not the one being dishonest. I have explained what is wrong with the question and answered it, [b]but you insist on entrapment [/b]and I'm not such a ffool.

Debeloved87: spiritual things are foolishness to a carnal mind. You dont understand God a bit thats why you breed hatred for him...it doesnt work like that and neither does HE do things like that too. You can keep on typing rubbish and calling HIM names here on NL, but i dare you to speak thoes things out loudly with your mouth wherever you are or in the public and lets see whether you will live through this year.....

Proffdada: Ooman u seriously have d brain defect triggered n fixed by d devil, 'tis folly to b wise where ignorance is bliss, I"ll pray for u

striktlymi: I would have said this is fantastic but I detest fanta ...so my dear sir, since I am a fan of coke I gots say this is cokastic...

So one need drop logic and reason when he/she holds a belief in God?...Please tell me more and while you are at it kindly show us that every scientist is necessarily irreligious...

striktlymi: Wow, this is awesome...you know that the 'invisible skydaddy' does not exist?...**grabs an extra large pop-corn and lays in a rocking chair**...please do tell how you know this if not for faith.

EUROBOMBER:
Yes, my God is in the business of roasting FOOLS like u that refuse to acknowledge His supremacy. U believe in satan but not God. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Well, that's cools; there's enough room in hell for u and satan ur father. U have from now till u die to acknowledge the God who created u or like I said earlier, better start practicing how u will live in hell fire. U can place ur pressing iron on ur chest, put ur hand in ur oven or go to people that kill and roast goats and jump into their fire for like 30 secs. That way when u get to hell it may not be that strange to u. And let me add that it is immaterial to God whether u believe He exists or not; He's having a lot of fun as God whether u believe in Him or not.

U know what, I will not plead with u to change ur mind about God like some others are trying to do here, PLEASE CONTINUE IN UR ATHEISM! I DROP THE BOMBS!!!

Proffdada: Subdural haemotoma,alzheimer's,trisomy 21, etc

ihedinobi: Refer to the GM analogy I offered
previously.

ihedinobi: Every system is basically the same, my
friend. Nature as a system shares the
properties of a system with the
computer system. All systems are works
of design, suited to a purpose, built for
operation in a particular way.
As I said before, if man is the operator
of the system called nature, then as
long as he maintained the operating
condition prescribed for nature,
everything would stay fine. If he altered
the conditions in some way, the whole
setup would head south. Everyday, we
see that happen with well-designed
systems operated poorly so I'm really
not saying anything new.

ihedinobi: Ok. This is from page 8 at http://
www.nairaland.com/1254148/why-idea-
god-fraud/8#15249616

And when you asked how and what the
consequences were for doing so, I said
at https://www.nairaland.com/1254148/
why-idea-god-fraud/10#15260731

ihedinobi: Ok, good. Your answer is NO. Therefore,
your whole argument that nature could
not have been created because new life
forms are still being produced,
according to you, is thrown out for lack
of merit.
It is now your responsibility to show
how it is "undoubtable", as you put it,
that nature lacks design and
coordination.

ihedinobi: I have already dealt with this earlier in
this post, feel free to refer to it.

ihedinobi: That I used those words to connote
probability at all. You did understand
what I said in that bit of my post that
you quoted, didn't you? It was rather
simple English, you know.

ihedinobi: Of course it isn't, but since I've already
explained it well enough, I'm leaving it
at that.

ihedinobi: So "nature proves God wrong", hmm.
How exactly?

ihedinobi: Considering that your inability to see
may be due to a willfull blindness,
there's little that I can do further for
you. It's been explained how a perfect
system can turn "imperfect", if you will,
it is up to you to show how the
explanation fails to satisfy the
requirements of your question.

ihedinobi: As for the "skilled operator" part, what
exactly are you saying with that?

ihedinobi: "Won't function at all for its purpose"?
What do you mean by that? That it
couldn't possibly function at all if it
were operated improperly or that it
wouldn't achieve the purpose of its
creation if it were operated improperly?
Those are quite different, you see.

ihedinobi: though it may fail of the
objectives of its design

ihedinobi: Are you somehow implying that it is
impossible that carnivores became
carnivores at some point in history?

ihedinobi: Geez, man! Read! Who asked you to
impress me? What is your problem with
English?

ihedinobi: If
you impress me

ihedinobi: Why should I waste any more energy if I
have already answered the question.
You go look for where I should have
and prove that I didn't. Sheesh!

ihedinobi: Right. And all this science proves that
you did not require one species that
"had its genome built from scratch", as
you said, as proof of design and are
now doing an aboutface to insist that
even this proof is not proof.

ihedinobi: I just knew that your stock of red
herrings couldn't possibly have been
exhausted

ihedinobi: I think I quoted you right in what I said.

ihedinobi: I thought you used "complex" to mean
an aggregation of simple elements. If
you did, can you name some simple
elements that combine to form the
"complex" called God?

ihedinobi: Of course, this is a red herring but I can
afford it since all you've done is help
prove your dishonesty and I'm quite
satisfied with that.

ihedinobi: I think you've already said what it is. Just
wondering how it helps your case for
honesty.

Olamyyde: in summary, when a person chooses to be an atheist, he doesn't belive in nothing, rather he believes anything

musKeeto: heehe, so you mean to say that GOD is the ultimate abuse of faith?

Pygru: evaporate!!!

ijawkid: ......keep decieving the Hell outta yaself.........

At least you needed Faith sha.......

Proffdada: above brain defects r not cases of insanity

ihedinobi: And, like I have kept saying, I can't
answer an insensible question.

ihedinobi: Have I agreed with you that the system
has a fault in it? Have I not continued
to hold that it developed faults, in a
manner of speaking, rather than come
originally flawed?

ihedinobi: Have I not insisted on a third option -
the operator?

ihedinobi: Have I indeed not offered any
explanation at all for how man screwed
up creation allowing things like cancer
to become possibilities?

ihedinobi: Second, did I say anything about a fruit
in this discussion?

ihedinobi: Right. Let's see
Question: Does the fact that a system is
still producing new things mean or
prove that it could not have been
designed?
ooman's answer: no sensible
intelligence will design a mechanism
that cause extinction to cause creation
I'm sure somebody can relate the two
so that one can actually be recognizable
as an answer to the other. I'm willing to
be shown the relationship.

ihedinobi: Now, how does an organism with
human intelligence deduce the above
from my response? What and what in
what I said conveyed the impression
that I doubt my inputs? Or is that
ooman's unilateral wet dream?

ihedinobi: They
are meant to indicate that the argument
the opposition is insisting upon as the
only explanation for a matter is not necessarily
the only one and, in fact, might actually be
revealed to be wrong in the face of another
argument.

ihedinobi: First, we're not saying the same thing
when you refer to the consequences of
wrong operation of a perfect system as
mistakes and I call them the outcome of
operational error.

ihedinobi: If the design were imperfect, then there
would be mistakes regardless how you
operate the system. In fact, operation
would have to take account of those
mistakes to mitigate their reflection as
much as possible in the system's
output.

ihedinobi: But if the design is perfect, but certain
"failures" nevertheless arise in the
system output, then, the question would
be, was the system operated properly or
not? So, such failures would not be due
to an imperfect design, rather they
would be due to improper use,
administration, control, operation etc of
the system.

ihedinobi: n fact, within the operating limits that
any given system is designed for, it is a
perfect production, see? So, when you
want to account for "failures" in output
for any system, the intelligence of its
designer is not the only thing to
consider. It may not even be the first
thing to consider, because before you
start blaming the designer for a bad
design, you must ask what the system
was designed to do and under what
conditions it was meant to do it. If
those conditions were met and the
system still failed in output, then you
ask about the correctness or perfection
of the design.

ihedinobi: If
you impress me with a need to shrink
your head back to normal size so that
we can discuss effectively, I will. If you
don't, I won't.

ihedinobi: Well, that question, right? Yeah, tell me
if really I haven't answered it and where
I haven't

ihedinobi: So, your science holds that there is
something that has always existed,
simple or not, and from which
everything came. It's not really self-
originated anymore because, as you say,
nothing comes from nothing . It just
has always been. Mm, very
interesting...and curious. I'm really
curious how simple something is that
can exist indefinitely though

ihedinobi: However, the most interesting thing
about the above is the shameless
breaking of a person's word. Haven't I
already told you that you are apt to use
this rather shady science of yours to
obscure your dishonesty?

ihedinobi: Did you or did you not require me to
offer one species that does not owe its
genome to any ancestor as evidence of
design? You yourself named what you
considered as evidence, did you not? Or
did I advise you on what the evidence
should be? Have I not offered one from
your own "science"? Why do you feel the
need to change the requirements that
you, on your own advice, offered? That
is the meaning of DISHONESTY, my fine
friend.

ihedinobi: Anyway, the fact that something
spontaneously comes into existence,
that is, the fact that something is
observed to suddenly pop into existence
does not answer how or why it does. It
is not proof that some unseen designer
did not create it.

ihedinobi: Finally, make up your mind between
"self-originated" and "always existed".
They're not quite the same.

Proffdada: It's a pity you have not spent time with ppl with these brain defects
I work in a place where the truth cannot be hidden

musKeeto: See this moan.. you couldn't even covert strykt...

davidylan: i'm just worried that we are seeing the same pattern again. Rather than provide a concise response to ihedinobi, you bury everything under a mountain of irrelevant hubris hoping we will not notice.

davidylan: shakes head. Have the decency to state that you do not have an answer to ihedinobi. I note you are quoting mazaje as well... did he quote you too?

mazaje: If your god exist we will not be here having this conversation. . .You would have pointed to it already. . .When was the last time you say people arguing about the existence of the sun?. . .Your god is said to exist but no one can show that it exist, people can ONLY talk about its existence. . .That alone is enough to show that it does NOT exist in reality but in people's imaginations. . .By the way you can not show that anything I wrote in my previous pose is wrong. . .

frosbel: Gentlemen and Ladies, I need your prayers,

seriously 

Please read my story and do not be judgemental or phariseeic in your response.

I left Nairaland to pursue other interests and was absent for a lengthy period.

However something clicked about 2 months or so ago , and I started posting more frequently again on this site.

Suddenly I cannot stop  Even my boys say things like ' Dad is on nairaland again ' I close my laptop in a hurry and give them a wide smile. I take them out to the park or somewhere for fun but still  browse with my phone .

Honesly the moment I see a  response or comment  from Lagoshia ,  Sweetneca  or Pastor Jo  that I do not agree with , a rush of adrenalin flows through me and suddenly the urge to reply almost sends me berserk , my mind is on getting home fast  to quickly respond , only then does my  blood pressure go down slightly .

My wife told me off for going straight to my laptop on a weekend morning again to Nairaland . I apologised but found myself back on it almost immediately. I now browse at home in hiding 

It has reduced this week, because I am back to work after a holiday.

Do you think some Yoruba Muslims, atheists or prosperity pimps have done something to me by remote control most likely from Nigeria.

I do not want to mention names but there are a few suspects on my mind.

striktlymi:

davidylan: you could just ignore me right? I mean there is no rule that you have to respond to my post if you have something more important to do no? Absurd.

Ihedinobi: @Ube

I've never read Augustine but he's one of the old-timers I have huge respect for.



I'd hate to use banter to spoil the thread and beyond this reply, I don't intend to say more.

Mazaje's logic is the same as this: any currency that can be forged ceases to be genuine.

You decide how sensible that is to you.

davidylan: It just surprises me that you would waste an ounce of energy on non-serious ripostes as opposed to working on a response to ihedinobi?

musKeeto: Oh, you don't know.. you just don't know...

Proffdada: Have u spent time with somone with brain damage? Same consciousness maybe loss of motor skills n cognotion,but still d sAME
Twins:ur statement validate my argument
Coma:can ppl dream about things that happened faraway from their coma bed