₦airaland Forum

1. Theism
Theism argues that their specific gods exist because they have personal conviction and relationships with them, irrespective of the myriad of evidence against them. It doesn't matter how much evidence against it that you have, it's personal to them, so they will reject whichever evidence you try to present against that God.

2. Deism
Deism argue that a god/creator must exist because the universe didn't just pop out of no where, something must have created it. However this something that we call god does not intervene in the proceedings of the universe through revelations and miracles, because the evidence available suggest that the creator doesn't.

3. Atheism
Atheism argue generally that there are no evidence for the existence of any god, hence they reject all. They have evidence against theistic gods and reject them in that regard but they do not have evidence against a deistic god but they still reject it.

4. Pure Agnosticism
Agnosticism does not make conclusions unless evidence is available for or against. Agnosticism will reject the existence of many theistic god on the basis of availability of evidence against their existence but they neither reject or accept the existence of a deistic god because of unavailability of evidence for or against it. Some Agnostics are of the opinion that the existence of a deistic god is unknowable while some may think that we have insufficient knowledge to know, we may find out in future.



Which of the 4 arguments is the most logical to make sure one avoids the fallacies statetd below.

Agnosticism. Let the theist present his evidence for God's existence and watch agnosticism die a natural death.

A001:
Agnosticism. Let the theist present his evidence for God's existence and watch agnosticism die a natural death.

I think theism is out of the question. We know that their gods are fake. So many evidence against their gods.

Theists are never gonna bring any evidence for supernatural interventions. The issue is with deism, there no way to know for sure if their God exist or not hence Agnosticism remains the best option

Workch:
I think theism is out of the question. We know that their gods are fake. So many evidence against their gods.

Theists are never gonna bring any evidence for supernatural interventions. The issue is with deism, there no way to know for sure if their God exist or not hence Agnosticism remains the best option

Yes, agnosticism is the best option based on the current level of scientific knowledge about the origin of the Universe.

However, out of the all the approaches to God, the deepest and most rational I've come across so far is the Otemic approach that says God Almighty is the totality of existence.

I won't call this approach deism because it looks distinct. Maybe Otemism would be better.

The guy says in the future, scientists will still detect the source of all things in existence, adding that the Homo Erectus era also faced the God problem, held many debates about it for thousands of years as we're doing in the modern era, and later on their scientists discovered the source of all things in existence.

He said once they made this discovery, their world came to an end after about 2 million years, and the Homo Sapiens entered the stage.

I think Agnosticism is the best and most logical option.

Otemism

The philosophy that states God Almighty is the Totality of Existence developed by OtemAtum and Atum from ancient Egypt. The Otemic philosophy says God Almighty is the summation of all things in existence.

Is this the best approach to the God problem?

We can see things in existence, though our brain can't grasp the totality of all things in existence due to the brain's limitations.

How then can one prove this God exists except by turning to mathematics?

It's mathematically possible to find the summation of things and sum to infinity.

What's the atheist's response to the Otemic approach?

What's the agnostic's response to the approach?

As an agnostic, I'd say it's hard to disprove the notion that says God Almighty is the summation of all things in existence because of the limitations of the human brain in grasping infinities.

Therefore, the concept looks abstract.

A001:
Otemism

The philosophy that states God Almighty is the Totality of Existence developed by OtemAtum and Atum from ancient Egypt. The Otemic philosophy says God Almighty is the summation of all things in existence.

Is this the best approach to the God problem?

We can see things in existence, though our brain can't grasp the totality of all things in existence due to the brain's limitations.

How then can one prove this God exist except by turning to mathematics?

It's mathematically possible to find the summation of things.

What's the atheist's response to the Otemic approach?

What's the agnostic's response to the approach?

As an agnostic, I'd say it's hard to disprove the notion that says God Almighty is the summation of all things in existence because of the limitations of the human's brain in grasping infinities.

Therefore, the concept looks abstract.

This is still a form of deism called Pandeism.

FatherOfJesus:
This is still a form of deism called Pandeism.

It's not. Though it's a bit related. The concept of infinities is key to the Otemic approach. His approach is unique and is best called Otemism.

A001:
It's not. Though it's a bit related. The concept of infinities is key to the Otemic approach. His approach is unique and is best called Otemism.

what do you understand by Pandeism?

FatherOfJesus:
what do you understand by Pandeism?

The article below shows my understanding of the philosophy, especially the part that says God, from the pandeistic POV, is not infinite in power and intelligence.

A001:
The article below shows my understanding of the philosophy, especially the part that says God, from the pandeistic POV, is not infinite in power and intelligence.

kindly differentiate it from what you are talking about Otemism

FatherOfJesus:
kindly differentiate it from what you are talking about Otemism

I said the concept of infinities is crucial to the Otemic approach.

From the Otemic POV, all things in existence are infinite, and summation of all things in existence is God Almighty. That's starkly different from deism and pandeism.

You should read about the Otemic approach before discussing it.

A001:
I said the concept of infinities is crucial to the Otemic approach.

From the Otemic POV, all things in existence are infinite, and summation of all things in existence is God Almighty. That's starkly from deism and pandeism.

it's Otemic really a thing or it doesn't mean anything outside of Nairaland?

FatherOfJesus:
it's Otemic really a thing or it doesn't mean anything outside of Nairaland?

OtemAtum is a guy on Nairaland that compiles the history of the Universe given to him by the ancestors of Africans that religious people worship as pagan gods, mainly Atum, Olohun, and the other progenitors of Africans.

Otemic is from OtemAtum with the root word Tem or Atum, the ancestor of ancient Egyptians worshipped as God by Africans in the past before the advent of Christianity and Islam.

Workch:
1. Theism
Theism argues that their specific gods exist because they have personal conviction and relationships with them, irrespective of the myriad of evidence against them. It doesn't matter how much evidence against it that you have, it's personal to them, so they will reject whichever evidence you try to present against that God.

2. Deism
Deism argue that a god/creator must exist because the universe didn't just pop out of no where, something must have created it. However this something that we call god does not intervene in the proceedings of the universe through revelations and miracles, because the evidence available suggest that the creator doesn't.

3. Atheism
Atheism argue generally that there are no evidence for the existence of any god, hence they reject all. They have evidence against theistic gods and reject them in that regard but they do not have evidence against a deistic god but they still reject it.

4. Pure Agnosticism
Agnosticism does not make conclusions unless evidence is available for or against. Agnosticism will reject the existence of many theistic god on the basis of availability of evidence against their existence but they neither reject or accept the existence of a deistic god because of unavailability of evidence for or against it. Some Agnostics are of the opinion that the existence of a deistic god is unknowable while some may think that we have insufficient knowledge to know, we may find out in future.



Which of the 4 arguments is the most logical to make sure one avoids the fallacies statetd below.

Here is a related question: do you live like a god is relevant to your existence or do you live like a god is not relevant to your existence?

Una no dey tire for this God matter?
Same arguments since 2014. Nothing new.

Seun abeg delete this Religion section.

LordReed:
Here is a related question: do you live like a god is relevant to your existence or do you live like a god is not relevant to your existence?

I live like it's not relevant.

LordReed:
Here is a related question: do you live like a god is relevant to your existence or do you live like a god is not relevant to your existence?

But you'll have to have definite knowledge of god to live like it's relevant to your existence.

As an agnostic, I don't have definite knowledge of god's existence so god is not relevant to my existence. I live my life that way.

Choices are ruled by desire and wherever there is desire, there is logic irrespective of whether such logic is good or bad.

Workch:
1. Theism
Theism argues that their specific gods exist because they have personal conviction and relationships with them,

And correction we do not say God exists because of relationship but because it is evident that it is impossible for a thing to be created out of nothing.

LordReed:
Here is a related question: do you live like a god is relevant to your existence or do you live like a god is not relevant to your existence?

It's obviously not relevant to me.
Why should this matter?
People who think god exist will say otherwise. They live their lives based on the supposed relevance for their various gods.

Workch:
It's obviously not relevant to me.
Why should this matter?
People who think god exist will say otherwise. They live their lives based on the supposed relevance for their various gods.

LoLz. Exactly. The god question is quite irrelevant once you see it has no effect in your life. I did tell you I was beginning to lean igtheist and this is is one of the reasons.

A001:
But you'll have to have definite knowledge of god to live like it's relevant to your existence.

As an agnostic, I don't have definite knowledge of god's existence so god is not relevant to my existence. I live my life that way.

Exactly. Once you discard belief the god question becomes irrelevant to your life.

Workch:
It's obviously not relevant to me.
Why should this matter?
People who think god exist will say otherwise. They live their lives based on the supposed relevance for their various gods.

The more accurate question is would you have liked to have God hanging over you?

And from your response, the answer shows you would not like that at all, which I have always told you and your brothers in idea, that, that was your problem with Christianity hence you love for the idea of the removal of God.

So thank God, today you have openly confessed it.

FatherOfJesus:
I live like it's not relevant.

Exactly. The god question becomes quite irrelevant once you discard belief.

LordReed:
LoLz. Exactly. The god question is quite irrelevant once you see it has no effect in your life. I did tell you I was beginning to lean igtheist and this is is one of the reasons.

I don't think this is correct, whether it not it relevant to your life doesn't mean it's not a possibility.

What happens in Antarctica may not be relevant to your life, it doesn't mean that Antarctica is not a thing.

Whether aliens exist or not may not be relevant to your life, it doesn't mean that we should not answer the questions of aliens.

LordReed:
LoLz. Exactly. The god question is quite irrelevant once you see it has no effect in your life. I did tell you I was beginning to lean igtheist and this is is one of the reasons.

second, igtheism doesn't infer that the question of God is meaningless because it doesn't have any relevance in our lives, igtheism sees the question of God as irrelevant because it feels that the definition of God is not precise. It's ambigious.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it's relevant to one's life.

I am giving you a very definite definition for God now: An entity that caused the singularity before the big bang to happen.

LordReed:
Exactly. The god question becomes quite irrelevant once you discard belief.

The mere fact that a person discards a thing eg a car or phone because they do not like it does not affects it's relevancy.

It is only the discarder who suffers the lack of enjoyment and benefit of using that thing but other users can continue enjoying it.

FatherOfJesus:
I live like it's not relevant.

As is in your power. Exactly as you can choose to live your life without phones and cars and render them irrelevant to you. No big deal.

But others will continue to acquire them and enjoy them.

Dtruthspeaker:
The mere fact that a person discards a thing eg a car or phone because they do not like it does not affects it's relevancy.

It is only the discarder who suffers the lack of enjoyment and benefit of using that thing but other users can continue enjoying it.

Of course!

Workch:
I don't think this is correct, whether it not it relevant to your life doesn't mean it's not a possibility.

What happens in Antarctica may not be relevant to your life, it doesn't mean that Antarctica is not a thing.

Whether aliens exist or not may not be relevant to your life, it doesn't mean that we should not answer the questions of aliens.

LoLz. It's true, no one is stopping you from finding out the truth of irrelevant things.

Workch:
second, igtheism doesn't infer that the question of God is meaningless because it doesn't have any relevance in our lives, igtheism sees the question of God as irrelevant because it feels that the definition of God is not precise. It's ambigious.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it's relevant to one's life.

I am giving you a very definite definition for God now: An entity that caused the singularity before the big bang to happen.

LoLz. I didn't say that irrelevance is the definition of igtheism. I said it was making me lean towards igtheism.

Well good for you. The god question is irrelevant to me.

LordReed:
LoLz. I didn't say that irrelevance is the definition of igtheism. I said it was making me lean towards igtheism.

Well good for you. The god question is irrelevant to me.

My friend Reed, you are currently struggling to figure whom you really are currently.
I am sure that you will get it all worked out.