Questioning comes to mind only when things aren't working fine, but when things are going according to order there's no tangible reason to question what you have!

MaxInDHouse:
Questioning comes to mind only when things aren't working fine, but when things are going according to order there's no tangible reason to question what you have!

Lol...mumu you..

Are you are robot?

sonmvayina:

Lol...mumu you..
Are you are robot?

Many people don't have hands but you have, why don't you cut it off since others don't have?

MaxInDHouse:


Many people don't have hands but you have, why don't you cut it off since others don't have?

Watchtower analogy bwahahahah

Wilgrea7:


Thank you very much for this question. Really. This is something I've been wanting to talk about for a while. By supernatural I would assume you're talking about something that can't be explained by our current knowledge of the physical universe.

I want to use the example of the burning bush. Let's say I wake up and all of a sudden, my chair is on fire. Although the fire doesn't consume it. And this said fire is talking to me (I swapped out chair for the bush in the story of Moses)

So let me ask a follow-up question. Why do i have to believe a supernatural being which appears before me and performs these "miracles" is telling the truth. Objectively speaking, is there any thing that prevents something which can perform extraordinary feats from lying?

A supernatural being as you've put it, appearing before me and claiming to be "God" is only trying to "defeat a strawman" which is basically disproving a fake argument. What rule is there that says a supernatural event or encounter is needed to serve as proof of a "God"?

If i wanted to prove to you that I built a rocket from scratch, and then proceeded to do a fancy dance, and throw a piece of dynamite on the ground as proof, does that mean I really built a rocket?

Let me use a much more practical example. We are Nigerians. We know what they call jazz or voodoo. If someone performed used voodoo to appear before you, and turned your dog into a chicken, and then said to you "I am your creator.. I created the entire universe".. would you believe the person? I don't think so.

Supernatural experiences are proofs of supernatural experiences. Nothing more. Proof of a supreme independent, and creator God of the universe is completely different from some supernatural experience occurring.



Of course that would serve as proof... But once again the two analogies are not related. Staying in a cave is entirely different from creating a universe. Or creating anything at all.

Living in a cave is not the same degree of action as creating something. People have gone and seen the man actively living in the cave. No one has gone and seen any sort of deity actively creating the universe.

Let me flip your analogy around for you. Imagine the man goes around telling people he lived (past tense) in a cave. Would you just accept his story at face value, or would you ask for proof?

Now imagine this man started dancing funny and called it "cave dance"... does that in any way validate his claim?

hahahaha
lol, very interesting I just had to laugh first..
well, if u observe I have been trying to engage in the thread, but it isnt easy becoz my phone got lost and I am using a button phone so it is not easy to keep us as I would really want engage u more in the topic with lengthy analysis but with this phone I can't.
it was a good argument by the way.

MaxInDHouse:

Questioning comes to mind only when things aren't working fine, but when things are going according to order there's no tangible reason to question what you have!

No sane human questions what is working out BENEFITS to the best of our reasoning so it's only when things aren't working out BENEFITS that we need to question it's source.
We breathe in oxygen, drink water, eat food, mate with the opposite sex, put on clothes and so many other things. No sane human questions any of these things because it's orderly and working out great BENEFITS.
So when is questioning necessary?
Surely it's when things aren't working fine!

MaxInDHouse:


No sane human questions what is working out BENEFITS to the best of our reasoning so it's only when things aren't working out BENEFITS that we need to question it's source.
We breathe in oxygen, drink water, eat food, mate with the opposite sex, put on clothes and so many other things. No sane human questions any of these things because it's orderly and working out great BENEFITS.
So when is questioning necessary?
Surely it's when things aren't working fine!

Not all food benefits
Not all water benefits
Some oxygen have been polluted.
Not all clothes honors one dignity.
Mating with opposite sex can you give untreatable disease.
If we don’t question a thing, we would still be living in archaic age.


And we don’t bring breathe in just “oxygen”
We breathe in Air which oxygen is just a part of it.
It’s because they asked questions we were able to know this.

Wilgrea7:

I'm not avoiding your question. You're tying to ask me a question based on a presupposing idea you already have. So in a way, your question is biased.

The accurate statement is "a leading question" and it is not biased as you knew from the beginning because it is a natural question which flows from the basis of your alternate answer "Anything which begins to exist has a cause."

Which is why I asked in other words
"Does a thing create itself?"

And you answered evasively and inconclusively

"No, I don't believe that something can necessarily come from nothing."

And then you cancelled it by solidly saying
"Anything which begins to exist has a cause. I agree". (Now you are no longer sure. No "necessarily" or any manner of uncertainty.

Which means you impliedly answer my questions that "Things do not create themselves"!

So do you now see how you have been evasive and dodgy since until this confession above which leads to my question

Wilgrea7:

We agree that a thing (in this case, the universe) had a cause.

Look again, you would see I narrowed it down to things that are without dispute by saying "IN THIS WORLD and the things in it".

We know this world very well, and none of us can claim to be an expert in the moon and sun and the space or spaces between earth and them, AS WE HAVE NEVER GONE THERE TO OBTAIN FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THOSE THINGS.

BUT ALL OF US ARE EXPERTS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE THINGS IN THIS WORLD, SO WE CAN GIVE TRUTH FULL TESTIMONY HERE.

Therefore, my question still stands flowing from your confession that "things can not create themselves."

So, you are supposed to supply an answer to my question.

Wilgrea7:


This is a nice analogy, but it really doesn't relate to the situation at hand.

Your idea of the existence of both Nestle, ragolis and eva water implies that there are subjective solutions to the problem of thirst.

The solution to your thirst will always be either a subject or subjects eg nestle bottled water lying on the way of the thirsty man (subject) vs. water in a pail, water in a cup, water in a bottle, wine, coke, bear in a shop on the way of the thirsty man (subjects). All are subjects, whether found together or discovered separately, hence it is always subjective. So subjective is not in issue at all.

So get back to the issue. Can you answer the question I asked which flows from your declaration that "things can not create themselves?"

Dtruthspeaker:


The solution to your thirst will always be either a subject or subjects eg nestle bottled water lying on the way of the thirsty man (subject) vs. water in a pail, water in a cup, water in a bottle, wine, coke, bear in a shop on the way of the thirsty man (subjects). All are subjects, whether found together or discovered separately, hence it is always subjective. So subjective is not in issue at all.

So get back to the issue. Can you answer the question I asked which flows from your declaration that "things can not create themselves?"

If things always need to be created by someone, then your Yahweh was created by his father, elohim

Dtruthspeaker:


The accurate statement is "a leading question" and it is not biased as you knew from the beginning because it is a natural question which flows from the basis of your alternate answer "Anything which begins to exist has a cause."

Which is why I asked in other words
"Does a thing create itself?"

And you answered evasively and inconclusively

"No, I don't believe that something can necessarily come from nothing."

And then you cancelled it by solidly saying
"Anything which begins to exist has a cause. I agree". (Now you are no longer sure. No "necessarily" or any manner of uncertainty.

Which means you impliedly answer my questions that "Things do not create themselves"!

So do you now see how you have been evasive and dodgy since until this confession above which leads to my question



Look again, you would see I narrowed it down to things that are without dispute by saying "IN THIS WORLD and the things in it".

We know this world very well, and none of us can claim to be an expert in the moon and sun and the space or spaces between earth and them, AS WE HAVE NEVER GONE THERE TO OBTAIN FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THOSE THINGS.

BUT ALL OF US ARE EXPERTS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE THINGS IN THIS WORLD, SO WE CAN GIVE TRUTH FULL TESTIMONY HERE.

Therefore, my question still stands flowing from your confession that "things can not create themselves."

So, you are supposed to supply an answer to my question.

I sincerely do not get your point. I never said that things can create themselves. I never claimed so.

I said everything that begins to exist has a cause, and for the sake of the discussion, I will agree that our universe as we know it today began to exist, and therefore has a cause. I'm not dodging anything. My position still stands.

You followed up by asking if i agree that the cause is an independent creative being. And i gave you a clear analogy why the follow-up question is biased, since it already makes an assumption on what the nature of the first cause is supposed to be, and you refused to address that.

Dtruthspeaker:


The accurate statement is "a leading question" and it is not biased as you knew from the beginning because it is a natural question which flows from the basis of your alternate answer "Anything which begins to exist has a cause."

Which is why I asked in other words
"Does a thing create itself?"

And you answered evasively and inconclusively

"No, I don't believe that something can necessarily come from nothing."

And then you cancelled it by solidly saying
"Anything which begins to exist has a cause. I agree". (Now you are no longer sure. No "necessarily" or any manner of uncertainty.

Which means you impliedly answer my questions that "Things do not create themselves"!

So do you now see how you have been evasive and dodgy since until this confession above which leads to my question



Look again, you would see I narrowed it down to things that are without dispute by saying "IN THIS WORLD and the things in it".

We know this world very well, and none of us can claim to be an expert in the moon and sun and the space or spaces between earth and them, AS WE HAVE NEVER GONE THERE TO OBTAIN FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THOSE THINGS.

BUT ALL OF US ARE EXPERTS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE THINGS IN THIS WORLD, SO WE CAN GIVE TRUTH FULL TESTIMONY HERE.

Therefore, my question still stands flowing from your confession that "things can not create themselves."

So, you are supposed to supply an answer to my question.

What a jargons
I know you’ve heard this before; you are dumbest theist on nairaland.

Maynmann:


Not all food benefits
Not all water benefits
Some oxygen have been polluted.
Not all clothes honors one dignity.
Mating with opposite sex can you give untreatable disease.
If we don’t question a thing, we would still be living in archaic age.


And we don’t bring breathe in just “oxygen”
We breathe in Air which oxygen is just a part of it.
It’s because they asked questions we were able to know this.

Has the questions stop people from eating, drinking, breathing, putting on clothes or mating?
You just buttress my point!
Questioning become necessary when things aren't working out BENEFITS. From time immemorial mankind haven't find a permanent substitute for food, water, air, clothing and mating.
So nobody says your questioning is bad but you can't tell people to stop doing what makes life sweet simply because you're still probing it you can only compel people to switch over to a better option!

Wilgrea7:


I sincerely do not get your point. I never said that things can create themselves. I never claimed so.

You never expressly and directly and undisputably said that "things can not create themselves". Go check it out and see.

Wilgrea7:

I said everything that begins to exist has a cause, and for the sake of the discussion, I will agree that our universe as we know it today began to exist, and therefore has a cause. I'm not dodging anything. My position still stands.

Our debate is not on the universe for as I said up, none of us can give Truth full testimony about the universe as you and I and a billion others can not and have not gone beyond this House called earth such that we can give Truth Full testimony about the universe.

So let's stay on this House that we both know very well and that starts with my follow up question since you agree that things can not create themselves.

Therefore, A thing is created because an Intelligent Creative Being brings it from "No thing" to "something?

Or put in another way, does it not require

1) A Living Being,
2) Ability and Power
3) intelligence and creative intelligence to create a thing?

MaxInDHouse:


Has the questions stop people from eating, drinking, breathing, putting on clothes or mating?
You just buttress my point!
Questioning become necessary when things aren't working out BENEFITS. From time immemorial mankind haven't find a permanent substitute for food, water, air, clothing and mating.
So nobody says your questioning is bad but you can't tell people to stop doing what makes life sweet simply because you're still probing it you can only compel people to switch over to a better option!

The question has stop people from eating wrongly, now they know what calories they should eat, people that are allergic to some foods will avoid it, foods that leads to Cancer they avoid it, food that athletes should eat and not
Of course it has led to even more questions, what’s consider good in the 1st century, is not consider good now in 21st century.
Even if you are sick, there are certain foods that are bad for you at that moment compare to when you are not sick, asking questions makes you derive even more benefits.
The quality of air, food and clothes is very much different from what we have now, we even have different DISEASES that was not present in time memorial.
Think.
Asking questions has led to further BENEFITS, and not just stagnant like we still live in 1st century.

Food makes life sweet for fat people but it will later lead to obesity and related diseases.

Maynmann:


What a jargons
I know you’ve heard this before; you are dumbest theist on nairaland.

Because you see now that your great stupidity has made me decide to never talk to you, so in your stupid frustration, you cry and lie and speak rubbish.

Dtruthspeaker:


Because you see now that your great stupidity has made me decide to never talk to you, so in your stupid frustration, you cry and lie and speak rubbish.

Dumb

Maynmann:

The question has stop people from eating wrongly, now they know what calories they should eat, people that are allergic to some foods will avoid it, foods that leads to Cancer they avoid it, food that athletes should eat and not Of course it has led to even more questions, what’s consider good in the 1st century, is not consifer good now in 21st century.
Think
Food makes life food sweet for fat people but it will later lead to obesity and related diseases.

Ọmọ you're still buttressing my point!

Humans have become selective in so many things they does carelessly in times past and that's exactly what some have done regarding religion, they have questioned their worthless religion and switch over to a better performing group.
So since people still eat food, drink water, put on clothes and mate with the opposite sex there's no reason to stop religion completely!

Thanks for buttressing my point!

MaxInDHouse:


Ọmọ you're still buttressing my point!

Humans have become selective in so many things they does carelessly in times past and that's exactly what some have done regarding religion, they have questioned their worthless religion and switch over to a better performing group.
So since people still eat food, drink water, put on clothes and mate with the opposite sex there's no reason to stop religion completely!

Thanks for buttressing my point!

That’s because you are not reading.
Asking questions leads to further benefits and not just stagnant like we live in 1st century.

Maynmann:

That’s because you are not reading.
Asking questions leds to further benefits and not just stagnant like we live in 1st century.

I perfectly understood what you're saying it's you that's trying to dodge the truth.

Has the questions stopped people from eating, drinking, breathing, putting on clothes or mating?

NO!

People only look for better ways of doing things and whenever they find better options they switch over. Religion is part of human life right from time immemorial so have you found a better way to worship the Creator?
If you have found a better way please present it so we may look critically into it, in the absence of that you don't have any point!

MaxInDHouse:

I perfectly understood what you're saying it's you that's trying to dodge the truth.

Has the questions stopped people from eating, drinking, breathing, putting on clothes or mating?

NO!

People only look for better ways of doing things and whenever they find better options they switch over. Religion is part of human life right from time immemorial so have you found a better way to worship the Creator?
If you have found a better way please present it so we may look critically into it, in the absence of that you don't have any point!

You didn’t understand enough. There’s no truth in a Yahweh worshipper, talk less of Jehovah worshipper, yaldaboath.

YES!
it has stopped people from eating certain foods and drinking certain water.
Food and water is good, but some foods and water are also bad for the health. If they don’t ask questions how will they know?
Common sense now
What’s regarded edible 1st century, has undergo investigations in 21st century and it is no longer consider edible.
Some FOOD leads to pimples, if you are allergic to that food will you eat it even though it’s “food”

Maynmann:

You didn’t understand enough. There’s no truth in a Yahweh worshipper, talk less of Jehovah worshipper, yaldaboath.

YES!
it has stopped people from eating certain foods and drinking certain water.
Food and water is good, but some foods and water are also bad for the health. If they don’t ask questions how will they know?
Common sense now
What’s regarded edible 1st century, has undergo investigations in 21st century and it is no longer consider edible.
Some FOOD leads to pimples, if you are allergic to that food will you eat it even though it’s “food”

Your last question simplified everything:

So if i'm not allergic to what i consume do you think it's compulsory i change it?

The answer is NO!

MaxInDHouse:


Your last question makes everything simple:

So if i'm not allergic to what i consume do you think it's compulsory i change it?

The answer is NO!

How will you know it’s that exact food that’s causing you pimples? And not all foods? Maybe it’s calories of it that you eat that’s causing it. Maybe you eat it with another food and it causes a reaction with it, how would you know if you don’t ask questions?
Bwahahaha

Maynmann:


How will you know it’s that exact food that’s causing you pimples?

If i don't have pimples must i worry because others have?
Guy i will know when things aren't WORKING OUT BENEFITS!

MaxInDHouse:


If i don't have pimples must i worry because others have?
Guy i will know when things aren't WORKING OUT BENEFITS!

How will you be able to know so as to avoid that food that causes pimples? How will you be able to eat healthy food to avoid not having pimples?
What’s causing pimples in others is also called food.

Maynmann:

How will you be able to know so as to avoid that food that causes pimples? How will you be able to eat healthy food to avoid not having pimples?

How do you know i've not worked on my diet?
I know because things are WORKING OUT BENEFITS!

MaxInDHouse:


How do you know i've not worked on my diet?
I know because things are WORKING OUT BENEFITS!

How did you arrive at having a diet?
Why don’t you just eat all foods since food give benefits, or you mean certain foods give benefits?

Maynmann:

How did you arrive at having a diet?
Why don’t you just eat all foods since food give benefits, or you mean certain foods give benefits?

Due to experience i have noticed how many do suffer because of malnutrition so i made research on the type of food that's suitable for me and stick only to those ones.
But if you're now saying you've found better diet that's good for everyone please present it so i may subject it to scrutiny, you can't decide for me you can only present what you have that's better than what i have then it's left for me either to choose wisely or remain stupid!

Wilgrea7:


Thank you very much for this question. Really. This is something I've been wanting to talk about for a while. By supernatural I would assume you're talking about something that can't be explained by our current knowledge of the physical universe.

The supernatural, I believe, is not just something that can be explained by your current knowledge of the physical universe, but also what you will never be able to replicate or accomplish using any knowledge of the physical universe. So, whatever falls into the category of the supernatural must be something that requires some kind of supernatural power or force. Don't you think so? For instance, physics, in its own way, has been able to state how thunder and lightning likely occur, but cannot make them roar and blaze in the sky. Or am I not correct?

Wilgrea7:

I want to use the example of the burning bush. Let's say I wake up and all of a sudden, my chair is on fire. Although the fire doesn't consume it. And this said fire is talking to me (I swapped out chair for the bush in the story of Moses)

So let me ask a follow-up question. Why do i have to believe a supernatural being which appears before me and performs these "miracles" is telling the truth. Objectively speaking, is there any thing that prevents something which can perform extraordinary feats from lying?

In the scenario that you created above, why wouldn't you believe such a supernatural being if no other supernatural being has ever accomplished, or will ever accomplish, such a feat? If no other supernatural being even has the ability to accompany such a feat, why won't you believe?

About the supernatural being lying. Before you can even accuse such being of lying, you must have a previous experience of such feat, especially from or with another supernatural being. Don't you agree? If not, with what are you going to use as a template for the comparison and the subsequent conclusion?

Just so we are clear; God spoke to Moses from within the bush and other supernatural signs were given to him right there. The Scripture didn't say that the fire spoke to Moses.

Wilgrea7:

A supernatural being as you've put it, appearing before me and claiming to be "God" is only trying to "defeat a strawman" which is basically disproving a fake argument. What rule is there that says a supernatural event or encounter is needed to serve as proof of a "God"?

What rule is there that says a supernatural event or encounter is not needed as proof of any god?

Wilgrea7:

If i wanted to prove to you that I built a rocket from scratch, and then proceeded to do a fancy dance, and throw a piece of dynamite on the ground as proof, does that mean I really built a rocket?

Nope!

Wilgrea7:

Let me use a much more practical example. We are Nigerians. We know what they call jazz or voodoo. If someone performed used voodoo to appear before you, and turned your dog into a chicken, and then said to you "I am your creator.. I created the entire universe".. would you believe the person? I don't think so.

What you said above is a bit tricky. One must tackle it with utmost care.

My question now is: "has there ever been a scenario where anyone used jazz or voodoo or whatever to turn a dog into chicken?

To turn a dog into chicken means that such power can also create a dog and a chicken. Don't you think so?

Any power that has the ability to accomplish such a feat should be able to do more. It means, therefore, that if such power can literally turn a man into a horse or horse into a man, such power can also create man as well as a horse. What do you think?

Wilgrea7:

Supernatural experiences are proofs of supernatural experiences. Nothing more. Proof of a supreme independent, and creator God of the universe is completely different from some supernatural experience occurring.

Supernatural occurrences and experiences are proofs that supernatural powers and beings exist. The supernatural events, occurrences and experiences can't be separated from how the Creator works. Is it even possible?

If a supernatural Being told you that he made the universe and everything in it - humans, plants, animals, the sun, the moon, the stars, thunder and lightning, the rain, the wind, the seas, etc, and he said he could prove it by exerting some influence on the sun and he did, would you believe in him?

Dtruthspeaker:


You never expressly and directly and undisputably said that "things can not create themselves". Go check it out and see.

So you want me to explicitly say it? The reason why I said "anything that begins to exist has a cause" rather than "everything has a cause" is because if I go with the latter, then the first cause, which caused the universe, would need to also have a cause, which is contradictory.

I'm not trying to dodge the question. I'm trying to avoid making a logical fallacy.

Similarly, I will also say "things that begin to exist cannot create themselves" rather than "things cannot create themselves" because the latter falls victim to an infinite regress, which looks for the cause of the first cause, which is, in itself, contradictory. I hope you understand why I use the phrase "begins to exist" now.

Our debate is not on the universe for as I said up, none of us can give Truth full testimony about the universe as you and I and a billion others can not and have not gone beyond this House called earth such that we can give Truth Full testimony about the universe.

So let's stay on this House that we both know very well and that starts with my follow up question since you agree that things can not create themselves.

Therefore, A thing is created because an Intelligent Creative Being brings it from "No thing" to "something?

Or put in another way, does it not require

1) A Living Being,
2) Ability and Power
3) intelligence and creative intelligence to create a thing?

I think this is where our opinions differ. I agree that a thing which begins to exist cannot create itself. That's about as far as my assertion of fact goes, based on the nature of our world today. You on the other hand, are making 3 bold assumptions.

And that is that for something to cause something else to exist, it must be

1) A Living being
2) Have the power to do so
3) Intelligent and creative


If we want to approach this subject logically, then we need to make sure we're not making any unnecessary claims. As far as these 3 go, the second one is the only one that seems indisputable, and I accept that. The other two however, not so much. I'll explain.

It's also important to note that the second attribute (having the power to do so) is a new addition to your list. Your previous list was "Intelligent, creative, and a being". Anyways, moving on

Based on our observation of the universe, we know that for something to be able to do or cause something else, it needs to have the ability or capacity.

For you to be able to run, you need legs of some sort (either mechanical or biological). A stone cannot run. It simply lacks the capacity to do so.

For the remaining 2... being a living being, and being intelligent. It's important to consider both factors properly.

Being a living being may seem like an obvious and self-explanatory thing, but it isn't. How exactly would you classify life? Plants and animals are living. Rocks are not.

Animals are sentient, plants are not, although plants are technically "alive". If you're talking of consciousness, Humans are higher on the consciousness scale than other animals, like crocodiles or lions, since their (animals) actions are more instinct-based, and less "reason-based" than ours.

If you're saying the first cause needed to involve a degree of consciousness in order to make the decision to create the universe, then i can agree with that to some degree. But then again, is consciousness, in the sense that we understand required to do something?

Animals perform various tasks based purely on instinct, rather than reason. Is it possible for the nature of the first cause to have been based on instinct, rather than based on reason?

Next is being. Singular. That's another claim. Why exactly must the first cause be a singular thing. Why can't it be plural? Why can't 2, 3 or even 5 things or events come together to create something. Why must it be 1?

MaxInDHouse:

Due to experience i have noticed how many do suffer because of malnutrition so i made research on the type of food that's suitable for me and stick only to those ones.
But if you're now saying you've found better diet that's good for everyone please present it so i may subject it to scrutiny, you can't decide for me you can only present what you have that's better than what i have then it's left for me either to choose wisely or remain stupid!

So before you got to that diet, you ask questions and even did RESEARCH for years. ONLY some foods are good, not ALL foods are good even though they are called “food”, so you now agree that asking questions leads to better understanding so as to find the perfect diet, and not just all food and water and clothes are good, certain ones are good.
But before you arrived at it you questioned and questioned yourself .

MaxInDHouse:

Due to experience i have noticed how many do suffer because of malnutrition so i made research on the type of food that's suitable for me and stick only to those ones.
But if you're now saying you've found better diet that's good for everyone please present it so i may subject it to scrutiny, you can't decide for me you can only present what you have that's better than what i have then it's left for me either to choose wisely or remain stupid!

You haven’t been an atheist, how did you know it won’t benefit you more? Have you done any research on It? What about mandeism?