₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
I am saying we know and we know also know when silence occurs because Truth has shut all mouths!

I'll try to break it down for you. Silence from oppositions can occur when “truth" or should i say “credible irrefutable evidence" has been presented. BUT it is not the only condition under which silence occurs.

And I've showed you that the idea that other voices were “silent" is simply not true.

Change of Post! The issue is not about "centre of the universe".

Off Point! Google, cars, phones did not exist until a few years ago and they have their places here. But offpoint still.

Let me give you some friendly advice. Before you jump into a thread screaming “change of post" try to understand what the person is saying.

When you're sure you understand, then you can start drafting a reply. If you don't understand, ask for clarification.. rather than screaming an irrelevant phrase.

As I said, change of post! We are not talking about "other religious books". Each group have a right to defend themselves on their own force and merit.

You were talking about objections during the biblical times. I showed you the fallacy in your analogy, and then made reference to other books which hold contradictory information.

Contradictory information poses an objection, albeit indirectly in this case, to the claims about reality made by your book. Surely even you can understand this basic concept.

I know! And I simply responded to show you that you should not have said anything for it is indefensible because you both lack locus standi. Just as you lack capacity to make a case about Davido's son's death, so also could both you and the other guy nor anybody today raise any allegation against the Bible. You can not take panadol for another person's headache, is The Law!

What exactly do you mean by make a case about it? Are you talking about denying it, or affirming it?

You can as well refuse to believe and accept that Ifeanyi Davido's son, is not dead! You are well within your rights and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, for it is your right to accept or reject any thing, whether that thing is True or not.

My refusal to accept it won't change the fact that it happened. Also, if someone made up a false or inaccurate story, my desire to accept it won't make it true.

As I've been saying before, it all falls back to evidence for the claims made.

Like refusing to travel with God is good Motors and preferring "I hate God Mass Transit". It is the exercise of your power and right to act.

I've pointed out that this analogy is a terrible one on many occasions. Yet you still insist on using it.

Whether your power and right is exercised rightly or wrongly is a separate issue.

But, as long as you have a power and right to act, you will do it in any way you will it to be and like I said, using the Davido's son and the transport companies, the basis does not need to be True. As long as it is your power, you will do whatever you choose to do.

After all, you are free to choose a Truth or a Lie! You are not bound to accept all Truths whether you like it or not.

And that is why a Court, the Natural Court God made and gave men (and not the ones men made for themselves which is called legal) is better, for it must accept all Truths whether the Judges like it or not.

But in your own court you can do whatever you like which is the essence and power and evil of legal and manmade courts which are courts of "do as you like and can do"!

Which is simply what you people are doing AND YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT BOUND OR SWORN TO UPHOLD THE TRUTH

So, there is no need trying to prove anything to you people.

You're beginning to go off a tangent here. Truth is truth regardless of whether you, or I accept it or not. That is something we both fully agree on (hopefully)

No one has a right to deny reality. The phrase itself doesn't even make sense. Choosing to believe something that isn't true, or to not believe something that is, won't change anything.

The issue here isn't about who has the right to do what. that's pretty irrelevant in my opinion.

The disagreement between what is true, and what isn't, can easily be solved is there is tangible evidence to corroborate the claims made. In the absence of evidence, the claims made are simply just claims.

If I as an atheist, lack the belief in your bible stories because of lack of evidence, it isn't me “exercising my right" to deny “truth".. it is simply me choosing not to accept something that has no evidence.

If you want to call something true, then you should provide the evidence that makes it such. If you want to call your bible stories true, then provide the evidence that make them so.

If you fail to, then you have absolutely no claim to truth

Wilgrea7:
... BUT it is not the only condition under which silence occurs.

Hence you have reached where I am wherein I said "we know when silence occurs because Truth has shut all mouths! Exactly as we know that no can raise a case saying that Buhari was never the president of Nigeria. The Truth of it has shut everyone up both now and for maybe a 100 years. That is how it works.

Wilgrea7:
Let me give you some friendly advice. Before you jump into a thread screaming “change of post" try to understand what the person is saying.

When you're sure you understand, then you can start drafting a reply. If you don't understand, ask for clarification.. rather than screaming an irrelevant phrase.

I told you before, once you step out of the issue of discuss, i would call for foul, exactly as play cannot continue when there is a foul in any game. So, sorry, your change of post is not allowable.

Wilgrea7:
You were talking about objections during the biblical times. I showed you the fallacy in your analogy, and then made reference to other books....
What exactly do you mean by make a case about it? Are you talking about denying it, or affirming it?

There is no fallacy when you are trying to find out if any person or groups of people who raised an objectionagainst the report of the Bible at the relevant time the Bible was written.

It is either you found a party which sued the Writers of the Bible stating this case against them OR none sued because, the facts recorded were True.

And unfortunately for you people, NO ONE SUED BECAUSE THE BIBLE RECORDED THAT WHICH WAS TRUE.

So, No Case both for them and for you.

Wilgrea7:
My refusal to accept it won't change the fact that it happened. Also, if someone made up a false or inaccurate story, my desire to accept it won't make it true.

As I've been saying before, it all falls back to evidence for the claims made.

You have only repeated what I said which is evidence or not, you will accept whatever you choose to accept and reject whatever you choose to reject, whether evidence supports your acceptance/rejection or not.

Which is why your judgement is already invalid because it is not based on Truth and The Laws of establishing Truth, which if course you do not know and cannot know, which is why you see that no one sued the writers and compilers of the Bible because, whatever they wished to say was already automatically a Lie.

Wilgrea7:
No one has a right to deny reality.

I cannot count how many times you broke this your law for I asked you if a thing creates itself and you denied real-eyeity by refusing to say The Truth!

So, you see, even you violated this your own law. Anyway, this is not the issue.

Wilgrea7:
The issue here isn't about who has the right to do what. that's pretty irrelevant in my opinion.

The issue here is ABOUT ABILITY OF HE WHO JUDGES TO DO WHETHER THE RIGHT OR THE WRONG!

Wilgrea7:
The disagreement between what is true, and what isn't, can easily be solved is there is tangible evidence to corroborate the claims made. In the absence of evidence, the claims made are simply just claims.

Bet you never heard this statement before.

"A fox should not be on the jury at a goose's trial" Thomas Fuller.

No matter what evidence a goose brings to its trial by foxes, the foxes will always say "I can not see any evidence".

Wilgrea7:
If I as an atheist, lack the belief in your bible stories because of lack of evidence, it isn't me “exercising my right" to deny “truth".. it is simply me choosing not to accept something that has no evidence.

We have all been proving our cases whilst we were growing up and we all know when a judge is unreasonable and biased and unjust.

And in here it has been proven innumerable times that you atheists are blind and biased and unjust judges. So, whatever you say, we all know the Truth and understand why you people refuse to see that which we see, you have seen as you said "denial of real-eyeity."

Wilgrea7:
If you want to call something true, then you should provide the evidence that makes it such. If you want to call your bible stories true, then provide the evidence that make them so.

If you fail to, then you have absolutely no claim to truth

As the American Declaration of Independence said, "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT, ...".

Self evident means it can be seen by all. And if there is anyone who claims not to see that which is seen by all, such a person is a liar or blind or both, which is what you atheists have been proven to be!

And I am back where I started

Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. (or unacceptance)

W. Clement Stone

Dtruthspeaker:
Hence you have reached where I am wherein I said "we know when silence occurs because Truth has shut all mouths! Exactly as we know that no can raise a case saying that Buhari was never the president of Nigeria. The Truth of it has shut everyone up both now and for maybe a 100 years. That is how it works.

I feel like we're going in circles here. No one is debating that truth can shut some people up in some cases. We both agree on that. But that doesn't negate the fact that silence doesn't always equal agreement. Emphasis on the word "always". But that's not the main meat of the discussion, so I won't dwell much on it.

Also, I've told you that the idea that there was silence, meaning no objection, to the bible stories is a statement that really doesn't make sense, and I've explained why.

There is no fallacy when you are trying to find out if any person or groups of people who raised an objection against the report of the Bible at the relevant time the Bible was written.

I've showed you why this analogy fails. I don't see why you keep bringing it up.

It is either you found a party which sued the Writers of the Bible stating this case against them OR none sued because, the facts recorded were True.

And unfortunately for you people, NO ONE SUED BECAUSE THE BIBLE RECORDED THAT WHICH WAS TRUE.

So, No Case both for them and for you.

Ok. For the sake of other readers who may be following this discussion, I'll try to break it down as simply as I can.

1) We know that for a lot of time throughout history, writing was not a thing. Stories were passed down through oral tradition until later on when writing became a thing.

Different cultures passed down their own stories which often contradicted with each other, about how reality worked. The idea of suing wouldn't make sense, because by the time you'll have your hand on a copy of the books which you didn't agree with, the writers would be long dead.

Also, even if someone at the time heard the story and went "hey, this isn't true"... there's no guarantee that the story being passed down would contain their objection to it. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite would probably happen, where stories would be passed down without the objections.

If said person went on to tell his own story of what he thinks really happened, that person's story would become one amongst the multitudes of parallel contradictory stories which I mentioned earlier.


2) Your argument can be used in defense of other religious books. Just replace "bible" with "quran" or "vedas", and see how it sounds. Let's give it a go shall we?

Everything in the quran, or vedas is true, because at the time it was written, no one sued. Mohammad definitely spoke to angel Jibril, and split the moon in 2. If that wasn't true, someone would have sued at the time the quran was written. Lord krishna really lifted a mountain with his finger. If that wasn't true, someone would have sued at the time it was written.

No one sued during those times, so therefore it is true. Any objections made now are meaningless, since no one sued at the time when these stories were written.

Now you see how easily that logic can be used to defend just about anything?

This has gotten a bit too long, so I'll be breaking it into 2 parts.

Dtruthspeaker:
You have only repeated what I said which is evidence or not, you will accept whatever you choose to accept and reject whatever you choose to reject, whether evidence supports your acceptance/rejection or not.

That's not an excuse to refuse showing evidence. If the other party chooses not to accept something after tangible evidence has been presented, then that's on them.

But refusing to provide evidence because you think the other party will deny it, is not much different from not providing evidence because you have none. Because in both situations, there is a lack of evidence. And flimsy excuses do not serve as justification for that.

Which is why your judgement is already invalid because it is not based on Truth and The Laws of establishing Truth, which if course you do not know and cannot know, which is why you see that no one sued the writers and compilers of the Bible because, whatever they wished to say was already automatically a Lie.

I've addressed this in the first part, so I won't bother with it here.

I cannot count how many times you broke this your law for I asked you if a thing creates itself and you denied real-eyeity by refusing to say The Truth!

So, you see, even you violated this your own law. Anyway, this is not the issue.

The issue here is ABOUT ABILITY OF HE WHO JUDGES TO DO WHETHER THE RIGHT OR THE WRONG!

Your best "proof" is a simple self-evident question. I have agreed that a thing cannot create itself multiple times. Now, it's up to you to take the discussion from "A Creator/creators" to "your specific creator", which you've failed to do so. Terribly.

Bet you never heard this statement before.

"A fox should not be on the jury at a goose's trial" Thomas Fuller.

No matter what evidence a goose brings to its trial by foxes, the foxes will always say "I can not see any evidence".

I've addressed this point above. Flimsy excuses like this are not sufficient reason for not providing evidence. Anyone can make this claim, or use this quote as a copout.

If i tell you today that I have 4 hands, and you ask for proof, and then I say something like this, it doesn't in any way validate my claims. Without evidence, your claims are nothing but mere claims. Quotes and excuses will not change that, neither will they strengthen your claims.

Wilgrea7:
Your best "proof" is a simple self-evident question. I have agreed that a thing cannot create itself multiple times.

Following your agreement that it is not possible for a thing to create itself, I then impliedly asked you if a non-living thing or a non-person could build a House, (earth) such as ours, which we can all see is deliberately put together in an organised fashion or it would take a Person to build this House and put us in it.

And at this question, you went off.

Wilgrea7:
Now, it's up to you to take the discussion from "A Creator/creators" to "your specific creator", which you've failed to do so. Terribly.

I even addressed this showing you that 2 Kings cannot rule one country at the same time and the world's history proves this but as I have said, you denied them.

Wilgrea7:
I feel like we're going in circles here. No one is debating that truth can shut some people up in some cases.

You have said the word "in some cases" and in this case, Truth has shut mouths for thousands of years, so no argument here, but here you are arguing unnecessarily.

Wilgrea7:
Ok. For the sake of other readers who may be following this discussion, I'll try to break it down as simply as I can.

1) We know that for a lot of time throughout history, writing was not a thing.

Sorry, you can not hold brief for a party who never raised a case against the Bible's records. This is like a lawyer going to court with no complainant. (Plaintiff)

Wilgrea7:
2) Your argument can be used in defense of other religious books.

That is why I said "Each group has a right to defend themselves on their own force and merit".

ReubenSandwich:
My point is that a person doesn't have to believe in the existence of any God to be as honest, trustworthy, responsible, fair, caring, monogomous, faithful, pure and chaste as any person who believes in one, or to have as much of any other qualities and virtues that people associate with morality. Are you disagreeing with that?

No I’m not, but then again, we are talking about different things.

Aemmyjah:
Feel free to ignore the ones you can't answer
What I meant in the last words is that he is a bit correct as to the meaning but he need to go and understand the struggle

I do not have the energy to answer what I, Wilgrea7 and other non-believers have been repeating on this thread, I was only concerned about your third point because it was indeed hilarious.

Dtruthspeaker:
And one of the implications of my answer is that you are the one who is making such a spurious and unfounded allegation centuries after.

And the making of an allegation, is not proof of Truth.

None of those present when the Bible made its report raised any objection to it. Meaning they confirm and corroborate the Truth of its reports.

So, you can not come centuries after to make an allegation which you did not personally see. Which is why your allegation is unfounded exactly like you accusing Dele Giwa of borrowing the Truth from Daily Times. You would be guilty of defamation.

Stick to your problem which is that you are very angry that the Bible has said Truths which you hate and find very unsettling. Your discomfort and displeasure is not the issue of discuss

Haha, I won't respond to this again because we both will keep arguing the same thing. My points have been made to you, if you still insist on making this flawed statements, then we can't have any further discussion.

I only mentioned you because I wanted to explain something to Endtimer.

MaxInDHouse:
Who are the laws enforcement agents used during the destruction of Noah's generation or Sodom and Gomorrah?

You don't understand. What is the duty of law enforcement agents? To maintain public order by ensuring everyone follows the law. They bring offenders to book by using all forms of punishments to bring them to order.
In the case of the flood and the Sodom and Gomorrah, your Supreme Being though did not use law enforcement agents but by his own hand destroyed humanity to bring them to order, exactly what law enforcement agents want to achieve. In the case of your Supreme being, he was even more brutal and barbaric in trying to ensure he maintains order.

So when you say we don't need law enforcement agents to ensure laws are kept, I ask you, do we now need a being who can easily wipe us out for not following his laws?

AuthenticKing:
You don't understand. What is the duty of law enforcement agents? To maintain public order by ensuring everyone follows the law. They bring offenders to book by using all forms of punishments to bring them to order.
In the case of the flood and the Sodom and Gomorrah, your Supreme Being though did not use law enforcement agents but by his own hand destroyed humanity to bring them to order, exactly what law enforcement agents want to achieve. In the case of your Supreme being, he was even more brutal and barbaric in trying to ensure he maintains order.

So when you say we don't need law enforcement agents to ensure laws are kept, I ask you, do we now need a being who can easily wipe us out for not following his laws?

Law enforcement agents supposed to follow the orders of a SUPREME RULER and at his order destroy those who won't allow others have peace. God sent angels to destroy because those angels will only wipe out evildoers and their children since they don't want to follow God's standard there's no way to save their children who supposed to be taught God's standard by their parents! Deuteronomy 6:6-7

MaxInDHouse:
Law enforcement agents supposed to follow the orders of a SUPREME RULER and at his order destroy those who won't allow others have peace. God sent angels to destroy because those angels will only wipe out evildoers and their children since they don't want to follow God's standard there's no way to save their children who supposed to be taught God's standard by their parents! Deuteronomy 6:6-7

Chai. While there are so many things wrong with your comment, I would focus on this: If God still needs to destroy others or send angels to wipe out evildoers, then he's no different from human enforcement agents who try to enforce laws by punishing offenders. Chikena.

Aemmyjah:
I agree. Most white men disregard the idea of God as incompatible with science cos they used to wrong attribute the mixture of some chemicals in organic chemistry to a 'vital force' and when a plague destroy a village, they say it was an act of God whereby it was a virus but there was no advanced instruments those years. Seeing that the mixture of chemical and epidemic has nothing to do with God, they felt that belief in a creator is archaic but is that true? How can the vast universe and the complexity of life result by random chance? The rotation of the earth, the sun, moon ,rains and stars? Others blame that there is no God cos a loving God won't allow his creation to suffer.

As for miracles, is that not what Jesus Christ condemed the people for? He said they have eyes but they can't see, and sense that can't comprehend. Let me give two instances here in Nigeria.

When I was small, I love to watch emmanuelTV seeing how TB Joshua perform miracles (I really wonder why people don't like the man and accuse him of fetishness but other pastors claim to have perform miracles but it was never seen on TV). I always believed that TB Joshua was a man of God and wanted to meet him. Some of his miracles were somehow stupid like helping a man gain a very powerful sexual power that his wife will become weak and the prophet is thanking God but I did not mind. I just want to see miracles... This was the one that beat me that they were not real. A powerful witch in the city who specialises in killing other powerful men of God (without mentioning one) comes to the Church and sits down. The prophet calls her out and 'exposes' her, she threaten to kill him. One lowly usher will come and hold a mic for her (have you started to see the scam? a small girl holding mic for the most powerful witch in the city that has been killing men of God?. The witch laugh an evil laugh and the small girl does not move but the pastor shakes, he then gain composure and begin his thing. The woman starts to shake until she falls, as she falls, the lowly girl makes sure she places the mic close to her mouth, the woman does not spend two seconds on the floor, ahw stands up suddenly, as she is standing, the girl is holding the mic close to her. What a poor acting. The woman from the floor starts shouting 'I'm free! 'I'm free!... This same scenario but different women happened like three times, I knew they were fake. Even when Jesus Christ cast out a powerful demon from a boy, he screamed and people thought he was dead until Jesus Christ raised him. This one just fell for one second without blinking. I remember this things and feel like weeping for Nigerians.

Second, a pastor in Nigeria who happens to be the richest pastor in the world gave a testimony not too long ago and is on YouTube, if you doubt it, it is there. He says that he resurrected recently resurrected a boy who was embalmed for 7 days and see how the congregation were shouting to a man who at that age can lie on the altar! (Anyways, no be him build that altar?). Think of this, in Jesus Christ time, there was no TV or radio and when he did some miracles, he warned them to tell no one but they did tell others and it spread so much that his opposer's can't dispute. Today, in this digital era where news flies around like missiles, do you need to tell people that you raised a boy that was embalmed? The media, the boy, the parents, the whole community would have done that for you just as they do when they donate food and money. No one can dispute those facts. The boy, the hospital, the parents and community is not known and we never heard of such news. What these pastors do here that attract followers will not work in developed lands. Nigerians want miracles and financial breakthrough. When they don't come, they blame God

But that is not our reason for not believing in God, it could be part of it but not entirely the reason.

I'm happy you're using this as a way to make a case of why you believe non-believers reject the belief in God, on the other hand, I've seen believers who accuse former Catholics and some former members of some Orthodox Churches because "they have not seen anything" implying that the Catholic Church and some of these Orthodox Churches are not that spiritual as per they don't do their thing in the 'Pentecostal Church style.'

But that is not entirely the case, AemmyJah, (I would focus on your point) we don't disbelieve God just because of fake pastors. But because of so many factors. For me, fake pastors are just like the writers of the Bible, making up things and presenting it to the world as words of God.

Why not reply specifically to the things Wilgrea7, KnownUnknown, Judas1X, I and many other non-believers have said on this thread to understand why we don't believe instead of using assumptions to make your points?

AuthenticKing:
Chai. While there are so many things wrong with your comment, I would focus on this: If God still needs to destroy others or send angels to wipe out evildoers, then he's no different from human enforcement agents who try to enforce laws by punishing offenders. Chikena.

He differs because He sets standards that's best for all his subjects so whoever doesn't want His standards should do just one thing for God: leave the planet!

MaxInDHouse:
He differs because He sets standards that's best for all his subjects so whoever doesn't want His standards should do just one thing for God: leave the planet!

At least, we have no evidence God exists so no need of leaving the planet.

I am leaving here for some important reasons, I would be back here tommorow or next.

AuthenticKing:
At least, we have no evidence God exists so no need of leaving the planet.

Great!
So why argue over what you are sure doesn't really exist nah!

Even if morality is imagined as a scale, set by God's nature, it still doesn't exclude the possibility of God's nature, being something that supports an act we would consider, at least subjectively, morally wrong.

I want to use the example of the old testament and sabbath day workers, or people wearing mixed fabric. Let's assume for a minute that Christ never came to earth, neither was it in the Christian God's plan to ever send him down.

Well, you can’t criticize Christianity by telling me to imagine there was no Christ. However, I understand your point. I should also add that in spite of our disagreements, I’m sure a number of atheists and Christians here would agree on most moral issues in real life.

Wilgrea7:
I completely understand you, but I think I need to define my position on the "which God" argument, so as to not be misunderstood. And I think the best way to do it is with a simple analogy. I think I've given something like this here before.

Let's take a guy, who grew up without his father. One day, he wakes up to find 3 people at his doorstep, all claiming to be his father. Of course we know that they can't all be. We know only one person can be the father. But we also know it doesn't necessarily have to be one of the 3 people too.

All we know, is that by virtue of the biological processes required to procreate, he indeed has a father. the father could be one of the 3 men at his doorstep, or he could be someone else entirely, somewhere else.

I think the same analogy applies when thinking about a God. The question of "which God" isn't a question of just choosing one from the ones we have available. It's also accepting the possibility, that the "true God" (permit me using that phrase) could also not be among the ones we hear about today. But nonetheless, the identity of the "true God" needs to be determined.

The answer was right there in the post you quoted. All I have to do is prove that one man is the boy’s father. He cannot have more than one father, so if one of the people standing in front of him is his father, we need not worry about those absent. Likewise, all I have to do is provide evidence indicating that Christianity is the most probable path to God. If I’m right, there is no sense investigating lost religions or any other religion. Hence, it is relatively easy to pull off. All that has to be done is scrutinize one faith, rather than all of them.

AuthenticKing:
But that is not our reason for not believing in God, it could be part of it but not entirely the reason.

I'm happy you're using this as a way to make a case of why you believe non-believers reject the belief in God, on the other hand, I've seen believers who accuse former Catholics and some former members of some Orthodox Churches because "they have not seen anything" implying that the Catholic Church and some of these Orthodox Churches are not that spiritual as per they don't do their thing in the 'Pentecostal Church style.'

But that is not entirely the case, AemmyJah, (I would focus on your point) we don't disbelieve God just because of fake pastors. But because of so many factors. For me, fake pastors are just like the writers of the Bible, making up things and presenting it to the world as words of God.

Why not reply specifically to the things Wilgrea7, KnownUnknown, Judas1X, I and many other non-believers have said on this thread to understand why we don't believe instead of using assumptions to make your points?

Who said people believe in God cos of fake pastor? You are like the ones you mentioned. You are not making any sense. You're trying to push to into an argument with such ones. If you are also an unbeliever, listen to them

AuthenticKing:
Haha, I won't respond to this again because we both will keep arguing the same thing. My points have been made to you, if you still insist on making this flawed statements, then we can't have any further discussion.

I only mentioned you because I wanted to explain something to Endtimer.

That is why we are not having this argument because there is no valid way for you to make your case. You have no locus standi to make this allegation nor do you have the ground to complain

How can Christianity be the ultimate truth when it borrowed its truths from religions before it and added it's truth to make it religion seem to be the holder of valid truth?

I really don’t understand the point you’re making here. Please explain.

AuthenticKing:
I didn't explicitly say it makes it moral but nevertheless, I would want to know why it's an evil basis to ground morality.

...

Well, I concede to this. I would still want to know how advancing humanity is an evil basis to ground morality.

You’ll be pleased to know I’ve done so reading on your point of view. I’ll answer the quoted question with one of my own: what is your position on wars?

Rereading your responses, you are a moral consequentialist. On your view the morality of an action is contingent on the state of affairs resulting from it. This state must be one with no more people harmed than in the state preceding it.

However, the resulting state of affairs should also be one that advances humanity. As you can see, both conditions will often conflict with one another. Hence, my opening question on wars; a mode of natural selection that has played a tremendous part in the development of mankind. They cause harm, but ultimately lead to advancement. Another such issue is eugenics.

Additionally, your view has a troubling relationship with time. When does a person consider not causing harm; now or in the near future? Perhaps a few thousand years. We are at a deadlock as one can often only guess through probabilities whether or not his actions will cause harm. For instance, Hitler’s parents were immoral in the sense that they conceived and raised him (an action), which led to WWII. However, they were moral in the sense that his eventual defeat contributed to technological advancement and the creation of policies to prevent history repeating itself.

If something will cause harm to (and possibly kill) 10 million people, but may improve the lives of countless more, does it count as a bad thing in your book? This is the frame of mind of every Stalin and Pol Pot. Utopian idealism run amok, causing unbelievable suffering because right and wrong are based on harm calculus and advancement.

On the other hand, if we eliminated all pain and suffering (what you call harm), humanity would stagnate. We would die out extremely quickly. There is a balance I believe your philosophy cannot provide.

MaxInDHouse:
Great!
So why argue over what you are sure doesn't really exist nah!

Scientists has not made that telescope so he can see God with his naked eye

MaxInDHouse:
He differs because He sets standards that's best for all his subjects so whoever doesn't want His standards should do just one thing for God: leave the planet!

Don't mind him, he himself won't welcome a criminal into his house and would be angry if the judicial system does not act with justice. He's holding a grudge with his Maker who has the perfect sense of justice

Dtruthspeaker:
Following your agreement that it is not possible for a thing to create itself, I then impliedly asked you if a non-living thing or a non-person could build a House, (earth) such as ours, which we can all see is deliberately put together in an organised fashion or it would take a Person to build this House and put us in it.

And at this question, you went off.

I've not denied that from the very beginning. In the thread I created on the "Existence of a creator God", I agreed that consciousness, or at least conscious decision, seems to be something that can be agreed on when it comes to the creation of the universe.

Once again, the ball is in your court to bridge the gap between "A creator" and "your personal creator".

I even addressed this showing you that 2 Kings cannot rule one country at the same time and the world's history proves this but as I have said, you denied them.

The idea that 2 kings cannot rule 1 country is an attempt at a rebuttal against multiple creators. I've explained several times why it fails (and I'm willing to do so again). But even if I were to agree with you that the creator could only be a single entity, you still have a long way to go from "A creator" to "your creator".

Once again, the ball is in your court.

Dtruthspeaker:
Sorry, you can not hold brief for a party who never raised a case against the Bible's records. This is like a lawyer going to court with no complainant. (Plaintiff)

That is why I said "Each group has a right to defend themselves on their own force and merit".

These statements don't make any logical sense. I've given valid reasons why the claims you've made don't hold up, and you're shifting the goalpost to completely unrelated topics.

Wilgrea7:
I've not denied that from the very beginning. In the thread I created on the "Existence of a creator God", I agreed that consciousness, or at least conscious decision, seems to be something that can be agreed on when it comes to the creation of the universe.

You have still not directly and expresly answered the question, your response is ambiguous.

Wilgrea7:
Once again, the ball is in your court to bridge the gap between "A creator" and "your personal creator".

We have not yet resolved "creato" much less this one

Wilgrea7:
These statements don't make any logical sense. I've given valid reasons why the claims you've made don't hold up, and you're shifting the goalpost to completely unrelated topics.

That is my point! You complaint is invalid ab initio and I am only pointing it out to you that it is invalid and ungrounded.

AuthenticKing:

Here are some additional issues with moral consequentialism. I have already mentioned the issue with time, so I will address moral responsibility, and geographical limitations.

Given your view that the morality of actions is dependent on their causal properties, rather than the actions themselves, you have set up a situation where what we do is of less account than the result of our actions. To take it further, who does what is also of fleeting significance. What matters is the state of affairs that actions contribute to. Hence the term 'consequentialist'; you are overwhelmingly focused on the consequences of actions and whether they subjectively contribute to human development, rather than the moral actors or acts themselves. To borrow terms from normative ethics, actions can either be considered morally right, wrong or neutral. I will now demonstrate that, on your view we will encounter geographical challenges as well as a moral dilemma invalidating the concept of doing good.

Given that there are only three states of moral actions everything we do must fall into one of these categories. I assume that, given your consequentialist inclination you would classify them as :

- Good: Any action whose consequence is the advancement of the human race.
- Neutral: Any action that neither contributes, nor subtracts from the present state of affairs.
- Bad: Any action that diminishes the welfare and/or progress of mankind.

The above classes constitute a fatal challenge for the consequentialist on the basis of moral responsibility. Moral responsibility refers to classes of actions that people ought to take on account of their "goodness". Given that these are actions, we can put aside the responsibility part and assess their morality independently. To address this let us consider our own actions:

Whatever it is you and I are doing now is hardly contributing to human advancement. Since we are not adversely affecting it, we are neither doing good nor bad. However, someone somewhere has just been shot or hanged unjustly. On the consequentialist view our actions did not result in a state of affairs better than the one preceding it on account of the evil occurring elsewhere in the world. This means that nothing we will ever do will ever be good as we have not contributed to a better state of affairs for all humanity. We have failed to cause human advancement.

On the other hand, the geographical problem arises if you attempt to disprove the above by stating that we are not to be held responsible for our actions not leading to consequences on a global scale. To do this you would be restricting the advancement of humanity to a local level. Local human advancement was the basis of the world wars. Worse still, on your view they could possibly have been right.

MaxInDHouse:
Great!
So why argue over what you are sure doesn't really exist nah!

Mr Maximus, that's not the basis of the argument. I only invoke evidence whenever you or any other person here begins to present your views as reality. For example, you saying anyone who doesn't want to follow your God's standards should leave the planet implies that I or any other non-believer don't want to follow God's standards so I invoked evidence which shows that there's no evidence that your God does exist.
The basis of the argument is based on the intial comment you wrote that made me reply to you, that humans can't live morally right without a God, that humans run into contradictions that lead to problems when they try to make morality on their own so I responded by saying that your God isn't different from humans in that regard.

Nevertheless, I forgot to say this in my response to you: If your God sets standards, he's not still different from humans who sets standards for citizens to follow. So it's the same thing.

Aemmyjah:
Who said people believe in God cos of fake pastor? You are like the ones you mentioned. You are not making any sense. You're trying to push to into an argument with such ones. If you are also an unbeliever, listen to them

Your comment implied so, I didn't have the energy yesterday to reply all your comments yesterday but for this one that I chose, your story implied that people reject (blame) God for Nigerian pastors failing to perform miracles for people.

But nevertheless, it's fine. I'm trying to push this into an argument. I agree.

Aemmyjah:
Scientists has not made that telescope so he can see God with his naked eye

I'm waiting for them to make that 'telescope' so we can see that we were indeed created by the monster character in the old testament Bible.

Aemmyjah:
Don't mind him, he himself won't welcome a criminal into his house and would be angry if the judicial system does not act with justice. He's holding a grudge with his Maker who has the perfect sense of justice

As perfect as subjecting humanity to labour and suffering because two people ate a fruit or drowning people in the flood or burning an entire city filled with people or using snakes to attack his own 'chosen people' because they complained to him for food! or sending wild animals to attack little children because they called his prophet a baldhead, etc.
'Our Maker' indeed has the perfect sense of justice!

Dtruthspeaker:
That is why we are not having this argument because there is no valid way for you to make your case. You have no locus standi to make this allegation nor do you have the ground to complain

Why are you bringing law courts into this?
I don't want to go any further with you but I would just summarize what Wilgrea7 is explaining to you that you've (and will still) fail to accept, your comment can be used to defend other religious books too since suing them for copying from other books won't make sense. If your grounds for objecting to my statement about your book is based on 'locus standi', then the Quran, Jewish Tanakh, the Veda, etc are all correct about their claims about the origin of the universe!

AuthenticKing:
As perfect as subjecting humanity to labour and suffering because two people ate a fruit or drowning people in the flood or burning an entire city filled with people or using snakes to attack his own 'chosen people' because they complained to him for food! or sending wild animals to attack little children because they called his prophet a baldhead, etc.
'Our Maker' indeed has the perfect sense of justice!

I think you're like a spoilt child disciplined by his parents but chose to complain of how wicked they are.
Have you not met parents that passed bad things like genetic disorder to their own children? The law of genetics says that acquired traits are passes from parents to offspring from one generation to another. Our parents acquired sin and imperfections and handed it over to us and we thank them for the unkind inheritance. How do you expect to take clean water from an unclean vessel
Yet Jehovah has provided the means by which we can be saved from the problem and enjoy the life he originally purposed for men. You have not yet seen that in your Bible
God did drown people in an earth wide flood but why did he do that? For fun? The Bible says that he does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked so what moved him to bring about the flood that killed many, and what kind of people perished in the flood? You talk as if someone dear to you perish as well. Do we not feel angry at how our human government and security operatives do not mete out justice to wicked people? If all the bandits and terrorists and gunmen were to invade your town and you had ultimate power, what will you do?
Children left their homes calling a anointed prophet bald, they keep taunting him, we don't know what further things try may have been doing but the man cursed them and bears came up to kill them all and they died? Are you angry at Elisha or God and excuse their actions or they were your own children
These same Baldhead was surrounded by enemies, yet he organized a great feast for them after praying to God to strike them with blindness and asked them to go. What would you have done?
Have you not read the prayer Jesus Christ prayed for those who beat him, spat and him and humiliated him like a criminal?
Have you not read how God spared a violent nation whereas his Jonah was so mad at such mercy that he wanted to die?
What will you have done if you were Uriah's brother, but the King David slept with him wife, impregnated her and have him killed in battle. He ought to die but he was spared
The people of Israel were rebellious against God and murmuring all the time instead of putting faith in God? Is God their servant? They saw how he rescued them from Egypt but they thought they could use murmur to get what he wanted. Even Moses wanted to die and they tried stoning him, they murmur and wanted to go back to Egypt. If you had a tenant or an employee always murmuring at your way of doing things, despite all the good you do, he keeps murmuring. Will you keep tolerating it forever?
You are being sentimental here