₦airaland Forum

KobolanderSegun:
If it was a political stroke they would have gotten rid of it immediately after they had achieved their goals..

" once people wear a mask they take off the mask to breathe properly."

Everyone knows how the Romans choose December....... But why did all the pagan religions they had die ?

If the role was to mask their pagan religions why did those religions pass away. I'm extremely conversant with all Religions and cults that have ever existed but why is Christianity still standing ?

I'm even against Christians making noise because of their pagan barbaric methods of worshipping of God.

Why have I not gone to church for 25 years and even mock Christians and laugh at Jesus Christ disciples who winned and dined with him ? . Why then do I not extent the disrespect to Jesus ?

Because Laughing at Jesus is as Foolish as a basketballer Laughing at Michael Jordan. I can laugh at Scottie Pipen because he is no Michael Jordan

+
Even agnostic me likes Jesus of Nazareth very much. At least the concept of him as presented, with his simple teachings through parables.

Of course I don't believe in the virgin birth, the trinity or the sacrificial death as redemption.

I do believe in his simple teachings though. Such as the Beatitudes / Sermon on the Mount. Parable of the Good Samaritan. Parable of the Talents. Etc.

budaatum:
Obatala, and Brahma (Hinduism), and Ra and Atum (Egypt), and Izanagi and Izanami (Japan), and Gaia (Greece), and Pangu (China) are all gods that were called the creator of the universe.

Would you claim that they all exist or existed?


Unconscious how? Unconscious to whom?

And why call it god or God when you can simply refer to it as the Big Bang that it is?


I think you should first establish that an event created everything" before claiming it was created by anything. You haven't, so I'm not having it. Sorry.

Scientists do not claim the Big Bang "created everything". They concede that something big must have existed for anything to go bang even though they haven't a clue what that thing might have been. That is however not an excuse to call it God. They are very content saying they do not know.

Sadly to continue down this path is like saying Messi is not the greatest footballer of all Time and then bringing up names of my classmates who played football and saying " why is Messi the best footballer in the world what about Kelechi, Femi, Biyi ?"

If I know football I would look at two things who had the most talent and who played at a high evel with high competition.

The fact that Obatala and co could not hold onto their followers or sango goes to show they possessed poor thinking strategy. Most Yorubas are Christians or Muslims for the past 150 years while traditional worship is indecline goes to show the founders could not even keep themselves alive after their death.

Jesus is spreading like wildlife across the world and the truth is he will continue to spread simply because his teachings are in perfect harmony with nature. As trees grow without any effort and have done so for billions of years because trees are in line with the mechanics of planet earth.

Jesus Christs teaching are in line with Nature and Science. There is No End in sight.

He even Boasted " Heaven and Earth will pass away but my Word's Will Remain " 2,025 years and Counting...........

DeepSight:
+
Even agnostic me likes Jesus of Nazareth very much. At least the concept of him as presented, with his simple teachings through parables.

Of course I don't believe in the virgin birth, the trinity or the sacrificial death as redemption.

I do believe in his simple teachings though. Such as the Beatitudes / Sermon on the Mount. Parable of the Good Samaritan. Parable of the Talents. Etc.

I haven't fallen sick in 20 years and I'm perfectly immune to Malaria and Typhoid fever. Coming from a childhood of constant sickness I can say Jesus Teachings are fantastic for health.

KobolanderSegun:
I haven't fallen sick in 20 years and I'm perfectly immune to Malaria and Typhoid fever. Coming from a childhood of constant sickness I can say Jesus Teachings are fantastic for health.

+
They are elevated teachings which lead to peace of spirit and equanimity of mind.

However I don't accept "turn the other cheek" which I regard as dangerous.

KobolanderSegun:
Sadly to continue down this path is like saying ...

Sorry, but have you read the title of this thread at all?

Does it say, preach to buda?

Please create a thread if that's your intention. I have no interest in being preached to in this thread, thank you.

KobolanderSegun:
Iv done everything you have done, and I have thought everything you have ever thought

No you haven't! And stop with your assuming and your lying!

You do not know everything I have done and have thought, so you can not make such a statement and expect to be taken seriously!

DeepSight:
+
Even agnostic me likes Jesus of Nazareth very much. At least the concept of him as presented, with his simple teachings through parables.

Of course I don't believe in the virgin birth, the trinity or the sacrificial death as redemption.

I do believe in his simple teachings though. Such as the Beatitudes / Sermon on the Mount. Parable of the Good Samaritan. Parable of the Talents. Etc.

Add, "turn the the cheek". It's not a parable par se, but it's my favourite often used Nairaland tool, though I confess slipping lately.

Here is a thread about how buda feels about Jesus, if you are interested.

https://www.nairaland.com/5178192/questions-budaatum-how-follow-jesus

Cc: KobolanderSegun

budaatum:
Add, "turn the the cheek". It's not a parable par se, but it's my favourite often used Nairaland tool, though I confess slipping lately.

Here is a thread about how buda feels about Jesus, if you are interested.

https://www.nairaland.com/5178192/questions-budaatum-how-follow-jesus

Cc: KobolanderSegun

+
I see your love of the Parable of the Good Samaritan which is also a personal favourite.

I don't believe in turn the other cheek through. I think it is irresponsible and breeds evil.

DeepSight:
+
I see your love of the Parable of the Good Samaritan which is also a personal favourite.

I don't believe in turn the other cheek through. I think it is irresponsible and breeds evil.

Yeah! My good old pagan non-God believing Samaritan whom Jesus told believers to go and do as he did. Unfortunately, many miss the point and go "Lord! Lord!"

My 'other cheek' fascination is not a belief (and by all the gods do I so not like that word), but a practise. I often turn the other cheek to those who insult or are rude to buda in Nairaland and watch them tire of insulting or being rude to buda. Most end up being close Nairaland friends who would share a bottle of vintage red with me.

That said, I have a close family member who never seems to tire slapping. They reported me to their pastor who I respect much, and I asked her why they never tell the slapper to stop. She told me she preached "slappers, stop!" for her next sermon, but doubts my slapper got the point.

budaatum:
Yeah! My good old pagan non-God believing Samaritan whom Jesus told believers to go and do as he did. Unfortunately, many miss the point and go "Lord! Lord!"

My 'other cheek' fascination is not a belief (and by all the gods do I so not like that word), but a practise. I often turn the other cheek to those who insult or are rude to buda in Nairaland and watch them tire of insulting or being rude to buda. Most end up being close Nairaland friends who would share a bottle of vintage red with me.

That said, I have a close family member who never seems to tire slapping. They reported me to their pastor who I respect much, and I asked her why they never tell the slapper to stop. She told me she preached "slappers, stop!" for her next sermon, but doubts my slapper got the point.

+

So funny.

I get your distinction between believing and knowing but honestly I tire of you hammering on about it. There is nothing wrong with the word "believe" and neither is it really the whole sale admission of ignorance you say it is.

DeepSight:
+

So funny.

I get your distinction between believing and knowing but honestly I tire of you hammering on about it. There is nothing wrong with the word "believe" and neither is it really the whole sale admission of ignorance you say it is.

There's quite a lot wrong with it in my book, but I guess pedantic me would need to settle with you getting it.

Just know that every time I see 'believe', I'm hearing "I don't really know because I have not sufficiently checked, and just assume it is true".

It's absurd to ask someone to believe what you don't know to be true or not. Jesus would accuse such people of giving stones to those seeking bread, and would likely say woe to such people.

budaatum:
There's quite a lot wrong with it in my book, but I guess pedantic me would need to settle with you getting it.

Just know that every time I see 'believe', I'm hearing "I don't really know because I have not sufficiently checked, and just assume it is true".

It's absurd to ask someone to believe what you don't know to be true or not. Jesus would accuse such people of giving stones to those seeking bread, and would likely say woe to such people.

+
But that is simply not the meaning of the word "believe." And in many cases, people have reasons for their belief. I don't speak of religious beliefs here. I speak of belief generally.

So if I say I believe that X politician is corrupt, I likely have reasons to believe that.

But I hear you loud and clear and understand what you mean in terms of religious beliefs.

DeepSight:
+
But that is simply not the meaning of the word "believe." And in many cases, people have reasons for their belief. I don't speak of religious beliefs here. I speak of belief generally.

So if I say I believe that X politician is corrupt, I likely have reasons to believe that.

But I hear you loud and clear and understand what you mean in terms of religious beliefs.

In most cases people do not have reasons for their beliefs, Deep, especially where religions are concerned and where the word often crops up, though your "believe that X politician is corrupt" proves my pedantic point.

You only believe X politician is corrupt because you don't actually have sufficient evidence to know. After all if X politician had been tried in court and been found guilty by you on the jury or a judge and sent to prison, you wouldn't merely 'believe' X politician was corrupt because you'd now know that X politician is corrupt (unless you disagree with the court of course).

But to simplify. You wouldn't say you believe it is raining if water is falling on your head from the sky, unless you think it might not only be rain, like perhaps it's just some god p1s5ing. And you'd only believe you have a million pounds in your bank account because you have not yet checked. And as soon as you do check your bank account, you'd stop believing because you now actually know.

But like I said, pedantic me. See it as demystifying buda to you.

budaatum:
In most cases people do not have reasons for their beliefs, Deep, especially where religions are concerned and where the word often crops up, though your "believe that X politician is corrupt" proves my pedantic point.

You only believe X politician is corrupt because you don't actually have sufficient evidence to know. After all if X politician had been tried in court and been found guilty by you on the jury or a judge and sent to prison, you wouldn't merely 'believe' X politician was corrupt because you'd now know that X politician is corrupt (unless you disagree with the court of course).

But to simplify. You wouldn't say you believe it is raining if water is falling on your head from the sky, unless you think it might not only be rain, like perhaps it's just some god p1s5ing. And you'd only believe you have a million pounds in your bank account because you have not yet checked. And as soon as you do check your bank account, you'd stop believing because you now actually know.

But like I said, pedantic me. See it as demystifying buda to you.

+
Ugh. I have heard.
Pls try not to bring it up again (with me). Assume I know.

DeepSight:
+
Ugh. I have heard.
Pls try not to bring it up again (with me). Assume I know.

I shall try really really hard, Deep, I promise. But know that any time you use that word with me, my bull will red flag it, or I'll just assume you don't know what you are talking about and will treat what you say accordingly.

It's because I have regard for a person who has deep sight. I can not accept shallow sight from one as deep as you.

budaatum:
I shall try really really hard, Deep, I promise. But know that any time you use that word with me, my bull will red flag it, or I'll just assume you don't know what you are talking about and will treat what you say accordingly.

It's because I have regard for a person who has deep sight. I can not accept shallow sight from one as deep as you.

+
I verily believe you will know what I mean by believe each time you see me use it.

Now back to this.

budaatum:
I can live with whatever it suggests, deepsight. And to be sincere, I love the mystique too. Just see the attention your thread has generated already, lol. The fact I can be here as long as I have and most still wonder is kind of an achievement. And amusing when those who get my gender wrong claim to know whatever about me.

+
Nonetheless asking to be addressed as "they/them" does speak.

Oh. Truth, lol. Okay, let me try.

Everything written in The Mystical Life of Jesus, is uncorroborated and is likely to be untrue, while everything written in Mental Alchemy can be made to be true or not.

You asked about spirituality earlier, and this is sort of where it applies. It necessitates not seeing things as dichotomic.


You do keep insisting on this "belief" thing, lol.

My buddhism, Zen, to be specific, is not a belief system, but more of a philosophy. As in, a lens that one sees through. One does not carry the boat along the journey after a river is crossed. You leave the boat and walk.

Basically, the cause of my own dhukka is my own tanha. And the solution to my tanha is the Eight Fold Path. It makes me responsible for myself.

+
So you are a student of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.

I long admired those. Nonetheless the prescription of Buddhism to kill our desire is somewhat "anti-life" to me.
Life is all about passion and desire and taking them away takes away the very essence of living.

In this regard, there is something nihilistic about Buddhism, dont you think?

No sir, I do not "really think the physical body is all there is to us". I am not currently engaging with your physical body, I am engaging with your mind. When I die though, my mind will die with me.

+
So you believe that the mind is tied to the physical brain and ceases to exist once the physical brain perishes?

But please know that sneaky me is ensuring I live on after I die. I'll tell you how only if you ask.

+
I ask.
But I am guessing it's by leaving sufficient memories of you and your thoughts like droplets around the world and in the minds of others, like seeds that will germinate and live on.

Sincerely speaking, I don't think we have interacted as much as you think. Or shall I say, not as deep. And I mentioned those specific gods more for the response.

+
Fair enough.

God, in any form, and as far as I am concerned, is a gap filler. Those willing to know will seek more instead of filling the gap with gods and no more seeking.

My insistence on writing "god" is so only God is not assumed.

+
Nonetheless, surely something or the other sits at the root of reality?

Even gods must have causes, unless one wants to claim gods are uncaused, which in my view invalidates the idea of an uncaused cause of anything.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

+
It stands to perfect reason that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must be self existent. Do you dispute this. But first, do you understand the rationale for it?

DeepSight:
+
I see your love of the Parable of the Good Samaritan which is also a personal favourite.

I don't believe in turn the other cheek through. I think it is irresponsible and breeds evil.

Turning the other seek is simply a Strategy for Peace. Human beings are at various mental levels, when dealing with people who find it hard to grapple with information you need to either avoid such people or be willing to let them win.

If a husband is not willing to forgive his wife regularly that marriage will collapse. When a child steals money from their mother they can get a reprimand or a beating but the mother forgets about it and plays with the child.

In conflict between two neighbors of different intelligence the more intelligent party has to over look a bit because if the more intelligent person keeps on pointing out the flaws of the less intelligent person who makes so many mistakes by not respecting boundaries. Imagine having to correct someone everyday...all the waste of energy , it is better to overlook alot and vent when issues are very big.
You don't turn the other cheek to be hit it's simply a metaphor for " give the person more chances " because you want to save up your energy for more important things.

To turn the other cheek could mean to walk away from stressful situations when the average person would be screaming and shouting you simply turn and walk away.

DeepSight:
+
Nonetheless asking to be addressed as "they/them" does speak.

I believe it does speak, though I do not specifically ask anyone to address me as they/them. You'd notice I'm addressed as he and her by contributors here, and I don't correct either.

Let those with ears hear whatever they want to hear and speak as they please. buda lives regardless.

DeepSight:
+
So you are a student of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.

I long admired those. Nonetheless the prescription of Buddhism to kill our desire is somewhat "anti-life" to me.
Life is all about passion and desire and taking them away takes away the very essence of living.

In this regard, there is something nihilistic about Buddhism, dont you think?

There is only something "nihilistic about Buddhism" for those who lack understanding. Such people likely miss the entire point of the non-nihilistic Middle Path.

The Middle Path (or Middle Way) in Buddhism is the balanced spiritual path between the extremes of self-indulgence (sensual pleasure) and self-mortification (extreme asceticism). It centers on the Noble Eightfold Path—covering ethics, meditation, and wisdom—leading to liberation, enlightenment, and the end of suffering, representing a lifestyle of moderation and non-extremism.

DeepSight:
+
So you believe that the mind is tied to the physical brain and ceases to exist once the physical brain perishes?[/color]
Yes, I do. Once I die my mind will function no more.

What my mind has created here will however continue to exist as long as seun maintains Nairaland. My mind will not function though, not in my own head at least.

[quote author=DeepSight post=138971550]+
I ask.
But I am guessing it's by leaving sufficient memories of you and your thoughts like droplets around the world and in the minds of others, like seeds that will germinate and live on.

You, Sir, are indeed very deep!

Jesus is alive, only because of the droplets he is written to have left behind and that have been spread around the world, and I choose him as my mentor in this regard. I'd even go as far as claiming we crucify him all over again and again when we refuse to learn from what we have of him.

DeepSight:
+
Nonetheless, surely something or the other sits at the root of reality?

Hmm. Now this "root of reality" requires some thought.

Reality, in my own opinion, is like beauty, and is in the eye of the beholder. We often create our own reality and assume it is the actual reality, when most often we have just created crap in our own heads and believe it to be real.

So, the first question should be, what is reality? For one should first know what reality is before seeking its root, in my opinion.

But let us assume the reality we are discussing here is the beginning of this universe. It's like almost 14 billion years old, I'm told, so I hope you'd forgive me for being ignorant about it's root, since I'm relatively ignorant about like 20,000 years ago and even just yesterday.

I still haven't finished listening to the crap that dump said yesterday, note.

DeepSight:
+
It stands to perfect reason that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must be self existent. Do you dispute this. But first, do you understand the rationale for it?

I do very much dispute this your "perfect reasoning" indeed, though I do understand the human rationale for it. It is generally presented as the Watchmaker Analogy, and is a popular argument against atheism.

My own undisputed existence does not in any way make me infer that "something or the other must be self existent", because it is well known that I exist because my parents did something in their bedroom to create me, and their parents did something in their bedroom to create them, and their parents did something in their bedroom to create them, and their parents ad infinitum, and at no point can I say that the parents of my parents or the parents of the parents of my parents ad infinitum just sprang into existence by their self.

But know that I have not yet gone as far back as 2 million years ago when the broader Homo genus that my parents ad infinitum sprang from to check. Just that there is no reason nor evidence so far for me to assume that my existence or that of anyone I know or anything for that matter, must "be self existent".

The big bang is claimed to have occured like 14 million years ago, and I struggle with yesterday and 20,000 years ago, but it is my opinion that the current universe as known is not self existent, since something big must have existed priori to have gone bang. And I would expect something small to have grown before it grew large enough before it went bang too. Ad infinitum.

Basically, I refuse to fill my ignorance due to my own laziness and my inability to go that far back and fill my head with imaginary crap that I create in my own head. I'd rather spend my time on today and the immediate past of yesterday, or rather, and as Jesus said, and on you, "these brothers and sisters of mine" that I see before me now than that which is very very long ago that I can likely never ever see.

My own sighting is not deep enough for that. And I'm far too lazy.

Budaatum.

The argument about a necessary being (self existent root) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Watchmaker Argument. I will explain later.

budaatum:
No you haven't! And stop with your assuming and your lying!

You do not know everything I have done and have thought, so you can not make such a statement and expect to be taken seriously!

Off course I have

by reading your words they are window into your thinking process.

Once I can see how you use words I can Guage the level of your mind.

By talking of Obatala and the others are a sign even your beliefs are not concrete.

If you had concrete Beliefs you will only focus on one or two pioneers but by mentioning 5 or 6 it shows you haven't even gone deeply into the path you claim.

You are not seeing my words at all, KobolanderSegun, and you have definitely failed to "Guage the level of your mind". Because, if you actually do see my words at all, you wouldn't be talking about my supposed beliefs that are supposed to be concrete, according to you.

So please open your eyes and see my words and then come tell me how unconcrete beliefs are to me. I do not have sufficient patience today to engage with those who do not read my words and completely miss my cheek and who can obviously not see mind!

Regarding 5 or 6, see the mind of buda here!

KobolanderSegun:
Off course I have

by reading your words they are window into your thinking process.

Once I can see how you use words I can Guage the level of your mind.

By talking of Obatala and the others are a sign even your beliefs are not concrete.

If you had concrete Beliefs you will only focus on one or two pioneers but by mentioning 5 or 6 it shows you haven't even gone deeply into the path you claim.

budaatum:
I do very much dispute this your "perfect reasoning" indeed, though I do understand the human rationale for it. It is generally presented as the Watchmaker Analogy, and is a popular argument against atheism

+
As I mentioned above, the watchmaker analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophical principle of self existence, which is an argument for the existence of necessary things as opposed to contingent things. The watch maker argument is an argument for intelligent design from complexity, purpose and form.

The philosophical argument for necessary things is different. It postulates that certain things must necessarily exist for anything else at all to exist and these we call necessary things, as opposed to contingent things. Contingent things are existent based on the existence of some other thing, but a necessary thing is by nature self existent.

If we start from the presumption of causality which we observe around us in our world, we come to understand that whatever begins to exist has a cause. This would lead us to an infinite regress of causes if we proceed with this and properly understood, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. This leads us to the first cause argument, and such a first cause must be a self-existent or necessary thing.

Please see here for an intro into necessary vs contingent things in philosophy -

https://pathofmystics.com/existence-of-god-avicenna/

DeepSight:
+
This would lead us to an infinite regress of causes if we proceed with this and properly understood, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. This leads us to the first cause argument, and such a first cause must be a self-existent or necessary thing.

Sorry, but I'm not buying your special pleading of "properly understood".

There is no reason to stop an infinite regression at a self-existent or necessary first cause god after claiming "certain things must necessarily exist for anything else at all to exist".

It leaves you open to the question, what must necessarily exist for a first cause god to exist?

Your special pleading of "certain" to justify your "infinite regress of causes is impossible" is not selling because you have no reason to stop regressing where you place your "self-existent or necessary first cause" god which you have no evidence for its existence apart from you being tired of infinitely regressing and therefore filling the gap of your unknowing.

It's what humans have always done when they claim a watch can not exist without a maker, ergo, the universe must have a maker. Then they create one in their own image and choose to believe it made them.

P.s. I'm rescinding my promise about beliefs. It is far too innocuous and underpins your reasoning for me not to flag it to you despite your attempt to disguise it.

Your self-existent or necessary first cause god is a belief that you are very free to hold on to and presume buda does not "properly understand" if you can not accept the simple fact that buda is simply not buying your evidence lacking belief. You can not logic an imaginary self-existent first cause god into existence and claim it is necessary and expect buda to pay you for it, because it is not necessary for buda, and is not how buda is or reasons.

And on checking, you and I have already been here, so know what you are persistently repeating! (I found it after my response).

budaatum:
Sorry, but I'm not buying your special pleading of "properly understood".

There is no reason to stop an infinite regression at a self-existent or necessary first cause god after claiming "certain things must necessarily exist for anything else at all to exist".

It leaves you open to the question, what must necessarily exist for a first cause god to exist?

Your special pleading of "certain" to justify your "infinite regress of causes is impossible" is not selling because you have no reason to stop regressing where you place your "self-existent or necessary first cause" god which you have no evidence for its existence apart from you being tired of infinitely regressing and therefore filling the gap of your unknowing.

It's what humans have always done when they claim a watch can not exist without a maker, ergo, the universe must have a maker. Then they create one in their own image and choose to believe it made them.

P.s. I'm rescinding my promise about beliefs. It is far too innocuous and underpins your reasoning for me not to flag it to you despite your attempt to disguise it.

Your self-existent or necessary first cause god is a belief that you are very free to hold on to and presume buda does not "properly understand" if you can not accept the simple fact that buda is simply not buying your evidence lacking belief. You can not logic an imaginary self-existent first cause god into existence and claim it is necessary and expect buda to pay you for it, because it is not necessary for buda, and is not how buda is or reasons.

And on checking, you and I have already been here, so know what you are persistently repeating! (I found it after my response).

I knew very well you would have difficulty understanding the argument that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. I am of the view that you have not reflected deeply on the question.

But how shall I convey it to you?

Well the simplest I can put it is this - with an infinite regress, the entire principle belies causality. There simply can't be an infinite in the actual world of causes. Let's use the Actual Infinite Paradox.

It says -

-----------
In mathematics, you can have an infinite set, but in the physical world of causes, an "Actual Infinite" leads to absurdities.

The Argument: If the past were infinite, we would have had to cross an infinite amount of time to reach "Now."
---------------
*Culled

This necessitates an Impossible Traverse.

You cannot reach the end of an infinite path; therefore, if the path to today were infinite, today would never have arrived.
---------
*Partly culled

This is the simplest I can make it. With an infinite regress, there would be no today. There would be no now.

The process to get to "now" would last forever - and never end.

Its therefore only an abstract concept and can never exist in reality.

Now let me say this - I know ahead that you will instinctively reject this obvious and clear logic. Its fine. I will not press the point. That was not the purpose of this thread. The purpose was just to hear your "truth" and your views, not to debate them.

DeepSight:
I knew very well you would have difficulty understanding the argument that an infinite regress of causes is impossible.

There you go again peddling your belief that I "would have difficulty understanding the argument that an infinite regress of causes is impossible", when the truth is I do understand you. I just do not agree with you because a regression can go at least one single step further than where you decide to stop and insert your imaginary self-existent or necessary first cause god that you have no evidence for.

budaatum:
There you go again peddling your belief that I "would have difficulty understanding the argument that an infinite regress of causes is impossible", when the truth is I do understand you. I just do not agree with you because a regression can go at least one single step further than where you decide to stop and insert your imaginary self-existent or necessary first cause god that you have no evidence for.

+
Do you understand the definition of a necessary thing in philosophy?

DeepSight:
+
Do you understand the definition of a necessary thing in philosophy?

Let us assume that I don't and therefore looked it up.

In philosophy, a "necessary thing" refers to an entity, truth, or proposition that must exist or be true in all possible worlds and cannot fail to exist or be false.

Though I think you could have easily inferred whether I do or don't "understand the definition of a necessary thing in philosophy" with my watchmaker analogy, which implies a watch must necessarily have a maker.

Your self-existent or necessary first cause god is not a "necessary thing". There is absolutely no evidence of its necessity nor of its existence, and I can not understand why you insist I accept your belief as something you know and want me to believe too. I don't! And nor am I asking you to not believe what you believe, note.

DeepSight:
+
It's very rare for a Nairalanders gender to become an issue on this board. The only other person I can remember in similar terms was a poster called pilgrim1 who many alleged was viaro. Okay there was also one mavenbox/inesqor. Many years ago.

Viaro(m) was alleged to be pilgrim1(f). Unfounded allegations - and never proven. I communicated with the user outside this platform and still believe that user was wrongly accused.

Fair, mavenbox / inesqor were the same user. But no, "gender" was not an issue - rather, it was about a thin veneer of privacy. That's all I will say about that at this time.

InesQor:
Viaro(m) was alleged to be pilgrim1(f). Unfounded allegations - and never proven. I communicated with the user outside this platform and still believe that user was wrongly accused.

Fair, mavenbox / inesqor were the same user. But no, "gender" was not an issue - rather, it was about a thin veneer of privacy. That's all I will say about that at this time.

+
Dost mine eyes deceive me?
Long time!

DeepSight:
+
Dost mine eyes deceive me?
Long time!

Indeed! Good to see you still visit this place. A good friend in Lagos was trying to get a US visa under the current travel ban, so I decided to check what Nairalanders have to say about it. Lo and behold, it logged me right in, and I saw the mention. Haven't been on here in over a year now.
P.S. The section name was changed from "Religion" to "Christianity etc?" *Groan*.

I find it amusing that I am asked about spirituality and not the psychology or philosophy or even ideology of myself and humans.

I do not see your spirit, and anything I may say about it is just made up in my head crap. But I do see your psychology and philosophy and even your ideology because you reveal them in your words.

Things is, are you aware of your own psychology and philosophy and your own ideology, and that you reveal them to us here on Nairaland?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR-bfJPsL7w?si=GEhkTjx3zwZ5CP58