₦airaland Forum

davien:
To believe in something doesn't make it true....some people still believe the earth is flat...does their belief make it true?...people who believed zeus was responsible for storms...did their belief make it true?
What I want to know is how your idea of a "god" can be identified and proven...thousands of "god" and "gods" have been claimed since antiquity,what sets yours apart from the other unvalidated claims?

Our belief is simple and easy to be understood.
We believe in the
existence of God, on purely rational grounds,
without any reliance on revealed religion or
religious authority or holy text. Because of this,
Deism is quite different from religions like
Judaism, Christianity and Islam . The latter are
based on revelations from God to prophet(s)
who then taught it to humans.

You can say a deistic view of God is simply a failure in
attempting to explain the unexplainable.

It is good to admit ignorance than to swallow a claim as an answer to a question...
By the way,can you use "god" to explain and verify what darkmatter and darkenergy is?

This prompts the question: Are all atheists scientists?
You guys seems to rely a lot on science... Even science doesn't have answers/solutions to most the world's pressing questions/problems

[b] who is forcing evolution down your throat?...if you don't accept evolution are you called a reprobate? if you do not accept evolution does that stop species from speciating?
Why is the acceptance of a theory even part of your argument?...is it because it pushes magical creation myths aside?

Evolution is a flawed analogy... It has always been this way...
Once you guys find a better explanation maybe I'll spare atheism a second thought.

imagine if the greatest minds of our century followed your simplistic view that everything natural can be answered by "god-did-it"...would there be knowledge on many things,namely vaccines?... won't there only be faith healers if indeed everyone believed as you do....
I ask this because,before germs were known about... people believed the simplistic unvalidated ideas of "bad blood,too much blood,the supernatural,sucubus and spirits"...it was the skeptical approach towards this belief that led to knowledge of germs and from there the creation of vaccines...

Now you're wrong here...I told you we don't believe in 'other' supernatural forces aside that of creation.


Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after
the French Revolution with: " God is the power
of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is
the subject acted upon. "

FrancisTony:
My grandfather wasn't a Christian not until a year to his death.

He converted at 85years and died when he was 86.

Irrelevant.....it doesnt stop him from lying or being confused.


THERE ARE NO WITCHES IN YOUR VILLAGE........THERE ARE ONLY SUPERSTITIOUS PEOPLE

FrancisTony:
I have witnessed many things that will ne'er make me an atheist.

Talk more about village witches and people that get hold by medicine placed for them.

Witness many things like what?

You know in a village... Poverty and Ignorance are in a committed relationship... Tell me why they won't give birth to superstitious beliefs.


I didn't tell you this:

Once I went to my friends Villa for a traditional wedding...
My friend already told me his grand dad was a Naturalist…
As we were cleaning up...I perceived a pungent smell somewhere... smelt like an incense...
I decided to peek through the window and check out what was in that room.

Guess what I saw...
-A sizeable portrait of Jesus
-That of Mary
-An image of Buddha
-A cross
-A book that looks like a Bible

.....I couldn't stand the smell of the incense I had to run off.

Now my question is...what was the images of Jesus and Mary doing in a dibia's office ?

You know a dibia can cure and inflict...
So if the portrait of Jesus and Mary were there, wouldn't they be working for him too?

davien:
Are you referring to the genome of living things as codes or sequences in computers and therefore the principles are the same?

Yes. Both genomes and codes in computers are the same in principle their difference is in the details of how they work.

herald9:
When two elephants fight...the grass suffers...

This is how I was re-born

What I meant is...while these strong Christians are debating...

Do you know the psychological effects this debates has on those innocent, youthful minds of the viewers?

@ question: No. But I wouldn't mind learning.

UyiIredia:
@ question: No. But I wouldn't mind learning.

From Learning you'll start Reasoning -and that's the first stage

finofaya:
Number two is based on an assumption. How do you know that intelligence is required to build coded systems? It's because the only other coded systems you see apart from man made ones are the natural ones, such as living systems, isn't it? However, we know that the natural coded systems existed before man's intelligence did. Any coded system that man makes would be created after the observance of such systems in nature. As such, it is man made coded systems that require man's intelligence in order to be built, and not every coded system, as you assert. This is where the mistake is made, since the intelligence which you have seen creating coded systems does not create coded systems out of thin air, but from observation of already existing similar systems. If the intelligence of God is anything like that of man, then God would also have to observe already existing coded systems in order to build his own. But then this would mean that God learns, whereas he is said to be omniscient.

More importantly, it would mean that coded systems exist independently of God (this would explain his own life) and that his existence is therefore not the only necessary one.

Of course you can say that God's intelligence is nothing like man's, and that will be adding another premise to your proof, in which case your proof as it stands is a failure.

My proof isn't a failure. You fail in two respects:

1) You think premise 2 is an assumption. It isn't. From bonobos to boys, mathematicians to programmers, even to some extent (not involving abstract thinking) in bacteria, dealing with or making increasingly complex coded systems in the form of life and digital devices is a mark of intelligence. Man has being shown to the most intelligent lifeform also because he has been able make coded systems in the manner of digital devices and their softwares which are codes. We already know animals are less intelligent than us and they mostly don't make coded systems outside the ones they've been endowed with. For example, do bees draw plans for their combs ?

2) Making the inference that God’s intelligence must be like man's. This is needless. Exceptional kids and adults may understand the same topic but still have differing levels of intelligence given other factors. Whoever made living systems most be second to none first because we can't have an infinite regress of causes which your talk of God needing to observe something to make coded systems risks putting us in. Also I follow Occam's razor. Besides life being so complex that despite all we know about it we know there is still too much more unknown, it follows that its Creator must be, at least, extremely intelligent orders of magnitude beyond man.

herald9:
From Learning you'll start Reasoning -and that's the first stage

I’m already reasoning more so than people who don't believe in an immaterial mind.

herald9:
Deism holds that God does not intervene with
the functioning of the natural world in any
way, allowing it to run according to the laws
of nature . For Deists, human beings can only
know God via reason and the observation of
nature, but not by revelation or
supernatural manifestations (such as
miracles)

That's why I said its just an excuse to make man comfortable in not knowing the true nature of the absentee God.

herald9:
When two elephants fight...the grass suffers...

This is how I was re-born

What I meant is...while these strong Christians are debating...

Do you know the psychological effects this debates has on those innocent, youthful minds of the viewers?

My discovery in this nairaland is that most of the people being easily converted to atheism here are small boys and girls who have not experienced anything in life so they are easily carried away by the empty teachings of the atheists.

Again, young people always have this attitude of grabing something new, something different from what they ve known so I understand what's happening to them.

Someone like me who have seen mysteries in this life cannot swallow the crap that there is no God. The convictions I ve had over the years are too strong to give way for the atheists crap.

I believe some of these youths will still dump atheism as time goes on and they experience some things in life. Especially those of them who are sincerely seeking for the truth. The ones who left because they find serving God burdensome may not come back.

I think I may partly agree with what @sisterme posted in one thread sometime ago that those of them predestined for heaven will surely come back to God while those who are not predestined may or may not come back.

UyiIredia:
Yes. Both genomes and codes in computers are the same in principle their difference is in the details of how they work.

before I go on I would like to know first if chemicals are codes...

honourhim:
I think I may partly agree with what @sisterme posted in one thread sometime ago that those of them predestined for heaven will surely come back to God while those who are not predestined may or may not come back.

Predestined?

And what will they be doing in heaven?

herald9:
Predestined?

And what will they be doing in heaven?

Don't worry yourself about that since you don't have interest in going to heaven.

Billyonaire:
That's why I said its just an excuse to make man comfortable in not knowing the true nature of the absentee God.

We'll get there oneday...

Much as you'll like to proof this Evolution of a thing someday...

honourhim:
Don't worry yourself about that since you don't have interest in going to heaven.

Where's heaven?

Do you think you'll able to stand the sight of people who are not physically like you?

Won't you freak out?

davien:
before I go on I would like to know first if chemicals are codes...

No. But chemicals can be used as codes. For example, you will agree with me that inks in books are chemicals. Yet what is written in ink on a book is a code. Likewise the ARRANGEMENT of chemicals on the DNA helix is what codes for a particular protein. Just like an arrangement of letters codes for a thing.

UyiIredia:
My proof isn't a failure. You fail in two respects:

1) You think premise 2 is an assumption. It isn't. From bonobos to boys, mathematicians to programmers, even to some extent (not involving abstract thinking) in bacteria, dealing with or making increasingly complex coded systems in the form of life and digital devices is a mark of intelligence. Man has being shown to the most intelligent lifeform also because he has been able make coded systems in the manner of digital devices and their softwares which are codes. We already know animals are less intelligent than us and they mostly don't make coded systems outside the ones they've been endowed with. For example, do bees draw plans for their combs ?

2) Making the inference that God’s intelligence must be like man's. This is needless. Exceptional kids and adults may understand the same topic but still have differing levels of intelligence given other factors. Whoever made living systems most be second to none first because we can't have an infinite regress of causes which your talk of God needing to observe something to make coded systems risks putting us in. Also I follow Occam's razor. Besides life being so complex that despite all we know about it we know there is still too much more unknown, it follows that its Creator must be, at least, extremely intelligent orders of magnitude beyond man.

This is a rather roundabout way of agreeing with me. If God does not need to observe coded systems first before he can make them, clearly his intelligence is nothing like ours. It is not simply a matter of IQ, but a fundamental difference in how we are able to know things. You would have to include this premise in your proof first, and then we can see whether the proof succeeds with it.

honourhim:
My discovery in this nairaland is that most of the people being easily converted to atheism here are small boys and girls who have not experienced anything in life so they are easily carried away by the empty teachings of the atheists.

Again, young people always have this attitude of grabing something new, something different from what they ve known so I understand what's happening to them.

Someone like me who have seen mysteries in this life cannot swallow the crap that there is no God. The convictions I ve had over the years are too strong to give way for the atheists crap.

I believe some of these youths will still dump atheism as time goes on and they experience some things in life. Especially those of them who are sincerely seeking for the truth. The ones who left because they find serving God burdensome may not come back.

I think I may partly agree with what @sisterme posted in one thread sometime ago that those of them predestined for heaven will surely come back to God while those who are not predestined may or may not come back.

Could you please share some of these mysteries.

finofaya:
This is a rather roundabout way of agreeing with me. If God does not need to observe coded systems first before he can make them, clearly his intelligence is nothing like ours. It is not simply a matter of IQ, but a fundamental difference in how we are able to know things. You would have to include this premise in your proof first, and then we can see whether the proof succeeds with it.

SMH at your opening statement. What I wrote doesnt agree with your take at all. I don't have to include the premise you are asking for. All I did was isolate a fact you haven't denied: it takes intelligence to build codes. I based that on what you've stated: humans making coded systems (eg computers and maps). And I inferred that life likewise must have had an intelligent maker. If your best rebuttal to my proof is to state that it's an assumption or that my defence of it agrees with yours, then you, like ooman, plaetton and Kay17 before you have proven unable to rebut it.

malvisguy212:
did he worship what pharoah worship?

malvisguy212:
yes,paul is a sinner.
He also said in I Corinthians 15:9-10:
”For I am least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an
apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of
God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was
not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
the grace of God which was with me.”

Your diverting from your original question.

herald9:
Our belief is simple and easy to be understood.
We believe in the
existence of God, on purely rational grounds,
without any reliance on revealed religion or
religious authority or holy text.

WRONG! ...your belief is based on assumptions about the "god" concept.
It offers a backdoor to which a theist can answer why "god/gods" do not interact in reality..by claiming the "god" to have an indifferent position...

Because of this,
Deism is quite different from religions like
Judaism, Christianity and Islam .

It's difference is just tagging the "god" claim with an indifferent character...

The latter are
based on revelations from God to prophet(s)
who then taught it to humans.

No,they are based on the hand-picked claims of ancient men...claiming to have revelations from "god".

You can say a deistic view of God is simply a failure in
attempting to explain the unexplainable.

I wouldn't call it a failure...more like an excuse...to still hide "god" from detection...

This prompts the question: Are all atheists scientists?

No...but because atheism is a skeptical approach....seeking for knowledge is sought...and since science is the only known methodology of acquiring and error-checking knowledge...science is employed.

You guys seems to rely a lot on science... Even science doesn't have answers/solutions to most the world's pressing questions/problems

Science is simply put the acquisition of knowledge....to say one relies on science a lot would be to say one relies on breathing a lot...
You seem to think science is an entity on its own....which atheists look to...
science is merely a method to examine things and derive knowledge.
If science cannot answer a question/problem.. it admits ignorance on it..
Theology on the other hand, inserts an answer regardless of it being true or not...3000 years ago a theologian could claim that everything revolves around our planet... it would answer the question... but fail to test its accuracy...

Evolution is a flawed analogy... It has always been this way...
Once you guys find a better explanation maybe I'll spare atheism a second thought.

Explain how evolution is a "flawed analogy"...can a deist tell me why mammals can't have feathers?

Now you're wrong here...I told you we don't believe in 'other' supernatural forces aside that of creation.

And I acknowledged that, how did you come about the deduction of a "god" when according to deism... "god" only allegedly caused the universe...anything after came on its own...so the question is how do you know the difference between a non-existent "god" and a deistic one when both would have the same effects...

Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after
the French Revolution with: " God is the power
of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is
the subject acted upon. "

So if Thomas paine said so therefore its true? If he had said "shiva" instead "god" would it be true? or would you have still quoted him?
quotes serve as 0 proof for anything....they only address an opinion.

FrancisTony:
1. "Atheism isn't a belief, but the lack of a belief."

This is what I call the "single definition" of atheism. It is the
cornerstone of most atheistic defenses. Atheists like to use this definition
because they feel that it protects them from certain criticisms from
Christians and other theists. For example, if atheism is a lack of a belief,
then atheists can't be criticized for believing anything. This simple idea
is a powerful weapon for atheists on message boards. It is, however, wrong.
Since there is (currently) no scientifically verifiable evidence to support
either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called
beliefs. Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the
belief that there isn't. Atheism, therefore, is not immune to the criticisms
that other belief systems might draw.

2. "Atheism is not a-or has no-philosophy."
This is not true. Atheists believe that there is no God. Therefore, they
believe that all decisions made by the individual, the family and the
government should be made without regard to religious dogma. That is a
philosophy. This is true regardless of anecdotal incidents when atheists,
for ulterior motives, say that it's okay for certain people to believe in
God, e.g., "I'm in favor of the citizens of such-and-such country believing
in God if it will keep them from slaughtering each other." These are
actually exceptions that prove the rule, since they are always under unusual
circumstances. The basic atheistic philosophy remains intact. Even when an
atheist says, "I don't care if other people believe in God or not," he's
merely expressing an isolationist viewpoint toward a philosophy that he
still applies to himself. Otherwise, he wouldn't be an atheist, for no
atheist will follow any religious dogma.

3. "Atheism is supported by science."
Again, this is not true. Because no scientifically verifiable evidence
exists on either side of the God question, science can't even address the
issue, let alone reach any conclusion.

4. "Atheism is supported by logic."
Not only is this wrong, just the opposite is true. In logic, it's
impossible to prove a negative, that is, prove that a God Who Can Do
Anything doesn't exist. When someone claims he is an atheist, he is in
effect claiming to have proven a negative (at least to himself)-which is a
logical impossibility. In terms of pure logic, the only viable alternative
to theism is actually agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of
God cannot be known. But atheism runs counter to logic.

5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.

6. "There is no evidence to support a belief in God."
Yes, there is. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has
touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives.
Atheists refuse to acknowledge this evidence, because they accept only
scientifically verifiable evidence. This is a restriction that they have
chosen to place upon themselves, yet they demand that others do the same
thing, which is ridiculous. Atheists say that human testimony can't be
trusted because human senses can't be trusted. The fact that this twisted
logic effectively discounts all life experiences doesn't seem to phase
atheists in the least. It's yet another example of how atheism shuts down
the mind.

Wabbish

UyiIredia:
No. But chemicals can be used as codes. For example, you will agree with me that inks in books are chemicals. Yet what is written in ink on a book is a code. Likewise the ARRANGEMENT of chemicals on the DNA helix is what codes for a particular protein. Just like an arrangement of letters codes for a thing.

Good...so if chemicals are not codes but an arrangement of them could be said to be like a code,could you still say an arrangement like the dna helix is a code...but rather biologically acts as one?
On to "intelligence"... do viruses have intelligence?

davien:
Good...so if chemicals are not codes but an arrangement of them could be said to be a code could you still say an arrangement like the dna helix is a code...but rather biologically acts as one?
On to "intelligence"... do viruses have intelligence?

Come back when you are ready to address my argument you are taking me into a cul-de-sac.

UyiIredia:
I'll give a good proof of God no atheist on NL has satisfactorily rebutted. It is a proof of God from the design in life.

1) Living things are coded systems (ie they are built around codes in their DNA)
2) The major factor required in building coded systems is intelligence
3) Therefore we induce an intelligent Creator behind living things.

The great spaghetti monster , I got a better one , what about the Azadians from planet X in the constellation Hydrus.

UyiIredia:
Come back when you are ready to address my argument you are taking me into a cul-de-sac.

No I am not...if chemicals are not codes but an arrangement could act like one...can you call them codes? or say they act like one?...if your eye is not a camera but acts like one....could you call your eye a camera?

op, no time for one of my tomes. how do you reconcile your point 4 with your point 1?

how do you classify a positive or negative stance on a negative claim that cannot be proven, something most atheists would agree with you over certain gods, eg some true watchmaker deistic gods, as a valid 'belief' (within this context ice)? there is no evidence, nothing, to back up said claim, so why should I believe or disbelieve in it?

note that amongst many things you ignore the variety of claims for god. god y != god x. but I'll save that and more for an epistle (if bothered, ie)

davien:
WRONG! ...your belief is based on assumptions about the "god" concept.
It offers a backdoor to which a theist can answer why "god/gods" do not interact in reality..by claiming the "god" to have an indifferent position...
It's difference is just tagging the "god" claim with an indifferent character...
No,they are based on the hand-picked claims of ancient men...claiming to have revelations from "god".
I wouldn't call it a failure...more like an excuse...to still hide "god" from detection...


No...but because atheism is a skeptical approach....seeking for knowledge is sought...and since science is the only known methodology of acquiring and error-checking knowledge...science is employed.
Science is simply put the acquisition of knowledge....to say one relies on science a lot would be to say one relies on breathing a lot...
You seem to think science is an entity on its own....which atheists look to...
science is merely a method to examine things and derive knowledge.
If science cannot answer a question/problem.. it admits ignorance on it..
Theology on the other hand, inserts an answer regardless of it being true or not...3000 years ago a theologian could claim that everything revolves around our planet... it would answer the question... but fail to test its accuracy...

Explain how evolution is a "flawed analogy"...can a deist tell me why mammals can't have feathers?
And I acknowledged that, how did you come about the deduction of a "god" when according to deism... "god" only allegedly caused the universe...anything after came on its own...so the question is how do you know the difference between a non-existent "god" and a deistic one when both would have the same effects...

So if Thomas paine said so therefore its true? If he had said "shiva" instead "god" would it be true? or would you have still quoted him?
quotes serve as 0 proof for anything....they only address an opinion.

I'm already exhausted sire!

We'll surely meet again.
I must commend your effort.
You've tried .

davien:
No I am not...if chemicals are not codes but an arrangement could act like one...can you call them codes? or say they act like one?...if your eye is not a camera but acts like one....could you call your eye a camera?

Check up the genetic code article in Wikipedia. Your DNA has an actual code in every sense of the word. Using your argument Sumerian clay tablets or Egyptian hieroglyphs will be mere baked clay and paint respectively. Any physical thing can be used to make a code at least theoretically.

UyiIredia:
SMH at your opening statement. What I wrote doesnt agree with your take at all. I don't have to include the premise you are asking for. All I did was isolate a fact you haven't denied: it takes intelligence to build codes. I based that on what you've stated: humans making coded systems (eg computers and maps). And I inferred that life likewise must have had an intelligent maker. If your best rebuttal to my proof is to state that it's an assumption or that my defence of it agrees with yours, then you, like ooman, plaetton and Kay17 before you have proven unable to rebut it.

We won't get anywhere if we talk past each other. I never said that it is a fact that it takes intelligence to build codes. Remember I asked you how you know that intelligence is required to build coded systems. I never got an answer so I guess you agree with the one I gave. That short story I wrote in my first post is an attempt to show you how we cannot conclude, based on observation of human intelligence, that intelligence is required to build coded systems. In order to arrive at that conclusion, you have to first propose the existence of a type of intelligence that lacks the limitation that human intelligence has. i.e. you have to propose God! Your number two premise already assumes the existence of God, by concluding that intelligence is required to make coded systems.

Dude, if your proof is based on such an assumption, then it fails. I don't know what you mean when you say that your proof does not fail if I say it is based on an assumption. Is your proof now unfalsifiable?

finofaya:
We won't get anywhere if we talk past each other. I never said that it is a fact that it takes intelligence to build codes. Remember I asked you how you know that intelligence is required to build coded systems. I never got an answer so I guess you agree with the one I gave. That short story I wrote in my first post is an attempt to show you how we cannot conclude, based on observation of human intelligence, that intelligence is required to build coded systems. In order to arrive at that conclusion, you have to first propose the existence of a type of intelligence that lacks the limitation that human intelligence has. i.e. you have to propose God! Your number two premise already assumes the existence of God, by concluding that intelligence is required to make coded systems.

Dude, if your proof is based on such an assumption, then it fails. I don't know what you mean when you say that your proof does not fail if I say it is based on an assumption. Is your proof now unfalsifiable?

And I replied by pointing out how programmers for example need to be intelligent to make codes. You must be seeing double if you think premise two assumes God existence_it doesn't. Premise 2 is based on repeated observation of men making coded systems like phones and computers. Even in computers the more bulky or complex the code (or softwares) the more it can do. Also intelligent people are smarter at working with codes eg crossword puzzles with keys. I shouldn't be defending premise 2 because it is a fact I expect an educated person should know. Premise 2 doesn't even mention God but isolates intelligence as necessary to making coded systems (is systems based on a code)

UyiIredia:
Check up the genetic code article in Wikipedia. Your DNA has an actual code in every sense of the word. Using your argument Sumerian clay tablets or Egyptian hieroglyphs will be mere baked clay and paint respectively. Any physical thing can be used to make a code at least theoretically.

Apart from the fact that you're analogy of sumerian tablets as "mere baked clay" does not reflect my question to you i'll ask you this question....
Is dna a molecular code....abiding by the laws of chemistry or a code like a computer program obeying the various laws of information theory?
And is anything that could be said to be a code originate from a mind?