₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: C'mon, with heads as big as yours and the rest of your crew's, you guys shouldn't be having it tough showing succinctly how I'm not succinctly making sense.

:

obviously, you dont know what succinct means. check your dictionary and come back to tell me how your last reply was "succinct "

davidylan: rather than abusing me your energy could have been put to better use showing us why ihedinobi is not making sense no? you seem to be assiduously trying to avoid his post.

Avoid post I dont do that and I dont rush into posts too like you want me to. I take my time to reply epistles like his

davidylan: perhaps you should spend more time responding to ihedinobi's succinct response to you and stop trying to use me as an escape.

you really think ihedinobi is "succintly " making sense you are a failed PhD

^^^following with awe

davidylan: that was a meaningless come-back

come back says who?? however -

atheism - claims god does not exist

nontheism - does not believe in god.

so whatever hits the atheists hits me, so get to it

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

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?

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

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



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.



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?



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.

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.

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.

In 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.

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

Third, I really don't care how you want the debate to continue. You're quite welcome to use any kind of "harsh words and abuse" you like. I just call things what they are when necessary. 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.



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

What advice?



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.

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?

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.

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.

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

so long a letter...looking for my binoculars...will return to this epistle when i find it

davidylan: Atheism is a claim... a claim that the theistic point of view is false.

only if you can proof atheism is false.

however, I agree that we all have one claim or the other when we agree or disagree with anything.

Proffdada: First the word spirit can't exist if it doesn't exist
secondly,what powers consciousness? And why genetically identical Twins don't have d same character?
Why do ppl in coma usually have out of the body experiences?
You have a lot to learn

why does brain damage alter consciousness if it is powered by the spirits?

identical twins think different but their body chemistry, their genetic character is the same.

whatever "experience "ppl in coma have is all dreams.

you have alot to learn, not me.

All the love and all the best to all nairalanders.

Proffdada: As spiritual beings They r not bound by laws of physics.And physically they r not separated. The Father dwells in Heaven,the Son dwelled amongst men till He was crucified n resurrected,the Holy Spirit budded from the Father thru d remission of sins by the Mediator which is the Son. Mankind souls came from the Father and are meant to return after their earthly period but no tainted soul can return to d Source cuz its purity. Therefore the sacrifice was necessary

and you believe this without any proof am disappointed

since physically they are not separated god therefore got himself killed only to save us from himself. makes perfect sense.

there is nothing like soul and spirits do not exist, in fact, spirits cannot exist. there is no single shred of evidence for their existence.

Ihedinobi: ^^ "Anything that can be falsified seizes (sic) to become the truth anymore"? Astounding!

Dumb xtians. The reason why anything will be falsified is because it was believed to be the truth, which it really isn't.

Mazaje made perfect sense but it was too great for you to comprehend because it destroys your self made up god.

Proffdada: First you need to know these r spiritual beings

Duh, I know these things, just start already

^^^^

Proffdada: Yep, in order for you to understand you have to forget everything you know n hv against God

ok, now start

striktlymi: Relax I will respond in time! Hopefully my modem will be up and running on or before close of business on Monday.

It will be clumsy responding with my phone.


Thanks!

Your modem hasn't started working still?? Striky, you are a quitter.

mayor23: of course! I expected that. You know little

And you know so much to believe in myths

Proffdada: Good,now pick up ur pen and paper but before i start can u rub off the board

what?

Reyginus: Chineke meh! I don't understand sir.

how can you understand, corrupt goat

Goshen360: Don't tell me you people are beginning to USE YOUR GOD GIVEN MIND TO QUESTION THINGS OF THE SPIRIT O....

why shouldn't things of the spirit be questioned?

Proffdada: ooman homo i'm sorry i overestimated ur IQ to be close to that of a drunken bird,with ur pea brain u should know that boolean logic is NOT arithmetic but LOGIC. But lemme teach u a bit = a true statement + true statement= true statement

how exactly does this prove trinity?

Emusan: You don't know about boolean's algebra and you claim you're a scientist.

Not until when anyone can tell me how 1+1=1

Emusan: I can see your pains not yet converting any christian on this site to an atheist.

If i have converted anyone, they wont knock at your door just to tell you besides, am not an evangelist

Emusan: Everything that happens in nature has nature explaination but no valid concluding answers.

"No valid concluding answer "? Where you born yesterday?

Emusan: At the point of "singularity" cosmologist said the universe for no reason begins to expand itself which violate the very first law of Newton's "Every object remain in its stationary position unless external force act on it".

So the external force that acted on it came from where?

You are doing just fine when you try not to be scientific. Shouldnt your dumb religious brain tell you that Quantum physics only apply to the formation of the universe and never mechanics. Have you ever seen where mechanic was used to explain electroconfigurations or light? Dont be dumb just to prove an impossible position

Emusan: I know there are many truth post/comment you've ignored on this post or anytime an issue like this came up but just allow your personal ego to remain.

Pls quote those

Emusan: Why earthquake, diseases e.tc? If God decided to wipe out everything He has created who dare to question Him and all happen for a purpose. Remember all these have been prophesied even the one that yet to be discover. Ask youself how can I escape all these, then you need to move closer to God through Jesus. I know you're once a Christian but His grace and Mercy is still sufficient for you now act fast when there will be no more Grace & Mercy.
God still loves you.

Moving away from the idea of god is the only way you can be saved from this outbreak of craziness called religion - god worship

Logicboy03: Sharrap, I expected better from you. As far as this thread is concerned, you are among the ignorant ones.



Seriously disappointed, bro. you're ma pal, but you fall my hand

We all know the big b.ang isn't complete.

We have not even done a manned interplanetary travel before to know so much about our universe, not to talk of its origin.

This thread therefore becomes useless, ignorant, disappointing, waste of time and waste of nairaland space.

Am also disappointed.

[quote author=m.k.o2005]Oooman good morning ! We slept two nights already but you are still here trying to prove that God does not exist !
May the Almighty God whom you disbelief in make you believe even if it's in the hard way so ur soul does not burn in hell. I love you and care about ur soul.
May God help u oooman and help me also !
God bless us including all the atheists !
God help me[/quote]The Flying Spaghetti bless us all. I hope you learn the truth and worship the one and only Flying Spaghetti God so that you will not lose your soul in hell.

[quote author=m.k.o2005]If you say religious people,i might not have a word for you but i know that a 'christian',not like the kind oooman was has got live everlasting in paradise ! An atheist does not have this you know and i do not think they desire it though !
God help us all[/quote]exactly why would I want to spend eternity in a boring paradise where all you do for all eternity is sing holy holy holy to one self asserting iddiot yahweh monster

Ihedinobi: No burden comes upon me until I claim that your flying pig does not exist. Unless I make a claim, I do not need to defend what I believe or disbelieve to anybody. Simple rule of engagement.

Is that too much for you to comprehend?

If I say I do not believe you and you wish to pursue the matter, you can only ask why. If I am pleased to tell you, I may. If I'm not, I may not. If I do say why and it does not imply or directly state that flying pigs do not or cannot exist, then I've got nothing to defend to you.

You claim burden of proof is on atheists because we say god does not exist, but now you say burden of proof is not on you even though you say my flying pig does not exist and that you do not believe in it.

good boy

ihedinobi: Make the question sensible first. It isn't
right now. Creation had no "mistake" in it
until the person responsible for it screwed
it up. And that person was not the
designer.

Answer a simple question, if a system has fault in it, is it the fault of the system or the designer? How long will this continue? And how exactly did man screw up earth and started causing cancer for instance?

ihedinobi: As I've already said, what God actually did
is not the question here. It's a red herring.
The question here is whether or not the
fact that a system goes on producing new
things is proof that it was not designed at
all.
Your insistence on what God actually did is
merely indication that your argument that a
system that goes on producing new things
could not have been designed has been
destroyed and you need to obscure that
fact with an appeal to matters outside the
ambit of the discussion.

Your answer is that no sensible intelligence will design a mechanism that cause extinction to cause creation. I have given you this answer before but you ignored it, probabmy because it dextroyed your own arguement.

Now answer my question.

ihedinobi: It really does not require a lot of
intelligence to recognize that those words
are the language of argument. 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.

So am debating with a man who doubts his inputs
Like i said, you are a guesser and a waste of time.

ihedinobi: Have I treated the argument like I agree
wuth you that there were any mistakes?
If I have, then you have the locus standi to
ask me how mistakes do not flaw
perfection. If I haven't, on the other hand,
you cannot ask me that.
As it is, I do not agree with your claim of
the existence of mistakes in creation. What
you call mistakes I call the consequences of
the wrong administration or use or
operation of creation. Until we agree on
that, the question about how mistakes do
or do not flaw perfection does not arise at
all.

Well since from yoir post, we both agree that something went wrong. I call them mistakes (which flaws a perfect designer), you call them wrong administration. I have shown why i think they are truly mistake with reasinable explanations, you are yet to logically explain how the eating of a fruit immediately makes lion carnivorous.

I would really like that this debate continue without hash words and abuse, like two adults and not like children

ihedinobi: By all means, endeavor to ignore me, my
friend. It must be extremely confusing for
you guys to continue this charade of
pursuing arguments that you are
completely out of your depths in and
simply can't stay away from.

Just answer the question and try to take my previous advice

ihedinobi: Lol. I am?
Oh lovely! grin I think you just described a
miracle, dude. "The first life matter self-
originated!" How splendid! And
convenient for you too.
So, even though I can give you something
which does not owe its genome to some
ancestor, per your own specific
requirements, you still reject it as proof of
design. What honesty! grin
Can't say I'm surprised at all. Like I said,
nothing really changes religion-wise for the
person who claims to adopt atheism
instead of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism
and whatnot except the "myth". So, the
first life matter self-originated huh? Right!
grin And we Christians are dumb for saying
that God is uncreated. Awesome!

Like i said, this area is still under research. Spontaneously forming and weakly metabolising protocells has been observed and they make option of design baseless. This protocell was observed to form spontaneously from inorganic matter. This makes perfect sense since everything complex are combination of simple stuff.

However, the existence of a designer self destruct itself because it is absolutely baseless that a conscious, complex being popped into existence from nothing-while nothing comes from nothing- and makes everything from nothing.

Science hold that the simplest stuff must always exist and it is so simple that it eludes us. This stuff is too simple to be a complex conscious, omnipotent designer.

striktlymi: Lazy bones...c'mon go and research!


#Am out man!

You are useless sir

striktlymi: Lol!!! Don't worry man! Saw that you were overwhelmed with so many posts and decided to help...Just review your Boolean algebra before saying the equation does not make sense.

why dont you just shut up sir and tell me how 1+1=1 am done with my posts.

striktlymi: Only if you allow me flog you silly immediately after

no p sir

Ansell: let me simply say dat i agree dat science is a powerful tool for finding out empirical truth but d simple fact dat it cant prove or say anytin beyond MATTER makes it inadequate.
Science also has helped humanity immensely but atheist make d mistake of beliving dat anytin UNSCIENTIFIC is non-existent or false bt u forget dat science itself concerntrates only on matter. Do u think u r really being rational by holding onto d idea dat there is nothing beyond d physical?
I have been to a prophetess who knew nothing abt me nd had jst met me for d first tym but she told me my problems, she told me abt my sick mother's health nd gave me advice on wat to do witout me telling her a word; all dis she did in d name of christ. Also, i have seen men being healed of their diseases nd oda's of childlessness nd somtymz d sex of d baby predicted b4 its birth. Mind you, all diz done in da name of christ. I guess diz happenings cant b explained by science. Science is 1daful bt disbelieving in anytin unexplainable by science is not rationality bt scientific extremism.

Your ignorance is not an excuse for the existence of god. everything that happens in nature has a natural explanation. god becomes useless.

striktlymi: **in your voice** Am I your teacher?

stop this prevarication and solve the algebra

tomzman: After reading the opening post, its obvious that that guy lacks understanding. To those who say there is no God, let me for a second agree with you but hold on, how were you formed? Ok, you parents slept together and they had you. Who gave birth to your parents? Your grand parents, if you continue in that regression, it would get to a point science and logic would have no answer. And for those that still hold the belief that man came from apes, I ask, who created those apes?. The truth is science and logic cannot answer all questions. As an atheist, have you ever asked yourself what happens after death, Science has no answer for that while logicians believe nothing happens, man dies and thats the end but I ask how did they arrive at this conclusion, has any atheist or logician died and and come back to life to explain what happens after man dies? And to ooman who says the bible contradicts science, let me give you an example; Do you know that the bible said honey is not good for consumption? Latest research by Toxicologists have asserted this claim. I leave you to browse and find out more on that But I would say this 'it is better to live believing in God and die to find out there isn't than to live believing there is no God and die to find out there is' GOD BLESS.

you k ow what I think? I think that because ifa worshippers in the past knew that herbs were good therefore there is truly a God called Ifa who will send you to hell if you dont worship him.

IFA BLESS.