₦airaland Forum

HardMirror:
This is the problem with supernatural claims, no substantial sample data to work with, they depend mostly on highly exaggerated narration. Your dad's case may just be a coincidence or people should be very careful what they eat in your village.
Don't be surprised that it happens to even those who meet all the traditional rites, yet endup with similar infirmity.
So for now all we are doing are making assumptions in favour of the myth.

ikupakuti:
^^^^^

GOD does not exist as you put it cos he is the proof of existence!


Existence is a creature...every thing created has a begining/end and is bounded by the concept of time & space...GOD is uncreated


The human(created) intelligence/understanding cannot penetrate or grasp the true essence of GOD


Whatever exists will have to depend on the source of existence to continue to exist


GOD is INDEPENDENT


So, You cannot proove the existence of GOD ...cos whatever proof you tender would also rely on another proof for its validity...and so on down the line......thats why the big bang/evolution theory has generated more consequent questions than answers.....cos the moment you remove GOD from the equation... you‘ll never get to the bottom of anything


That is why religion was never fashioned/founded on REASON but FAITH

You can only come to the realization of GOD when you fall into the pool of pre-existence & eternity...through self effacement/annihilation...pratically, u‘ll have to stop existing

HardMirror:
THE SUPERNATURAL

Does the Supernatural exist?
Absolutely yes!

This is a Nomenclature given to things we can't understand or explain. It is nothing more than that.

What is Naturalism?

One of the most common versions of naturalism is the position that everything that exists is natural. Robert Audi defines naturalism, broadly construed, as "the view that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature" (Audi 1996, p. 372). Rem B. Edwards offers a similar definition: "[T]he naturalist is one who affirms that only nature exists and by implication that the supernatural does not exist... The [natural] world is all of reality; it is all there is; there is no 'other world' " (Edwards 1972, p. 135). Although these definitions capture some of the most fundamental features of naturalism, I think that naturalism can be--and thus should be--defined less strongly. Alan Lacey captures the heart of naturalism when he writes: "What [naturalism] insists on is that the world of nature should form a single sphere without incursions from outside by souls or spirits, divine or human" (Lacey 1995, p. 604).

I think that most naturalists would agree that naturalism at least entails that nature is a closed system containing only natural causes and their effects. Fundamentally, naturalism is a metaphysical position about what sorts of causal relations exist--it is the position that every caused event within the natural world has a natural cause. This definition of naturalism is weaker than "everything that exists is natural" because it leaves open the possibility that the natural world does not exhaust all of reality: There may be some aspects of reality which exist outside of nature. Which aspects of reality are nonnatural in this sense will vary with the different definitions of nature or natural being used. It may even be impossible in principle to know that such nonnatural realms exist. But this weaker definition retains the fundamental core of naturalism by denying that supernatural causation exists. It would thus be better to say that naturalism is the position that everything that exists within nature is itself natural and is solely influenced by natural causes.

ikupakuti:
You are a baby atheist, i suppose

First of all, i never mentioned anywhere to be a christian....neither did i claimed to have deducted my claims 4rm the bible....i bet that “every religious person must be dumb“ syndrome common with you atheists blinded you frm realising that

I know Elijah (Al-yasa‘h)... He was a prophet of GOD

You said he challenged others to GOD‘S tournament...I do not understand...is that a denial of cognizance of GOD frm him?...what was that about ?


And where did the bible disagrees with my assessment?...and what part of ?...where ?...pls, elucidate

And to ur last statement of showing way...i believe u were refering to my last statement...to which i‘m not surprised that u failed to comprehend...seeing how (out of sentiment) u‘ve limited ur capabilities of procuring knowlege to the confines of reason, only

Weah96:
There must be a way to prove to other humans that your god is the creator of heaven and earth. That's all I'm saying. That is how things were done in the holy books.

HardMirror:
, we would only have to hang that title on a phenomenon we don't know and probably can't know.
Hope you understand

ikupakuti:
Who needs the proof?
A believer or a non-believer?

PastorAIO:
… but could said phenomenon be said to be conscious, and have Volition?




Hah! wonderful! On what is the belief based? Proof or non proof. Non-believer needs proof. But the believer? Did he need proof? What is the foundation of belief?

PastorAIO:
… but could said phenomenon be said to be conscious, and have Volition?




Hah! wonderful! On what is the belief based? Proof or non proof. Non-believer needs proof. But the believer? Did he need proof? What is the foundation of belief?

ikupakuti:
Who needs the proof?

A believer or a non-believer? ...and using “reason“ as a backdrop or “faith“

Do u have another creator/another claimant of heaven and earth?

...and which of the holybooks are u refering to? ...which do u believe in?...where did it go against my assessment?...you refused to mention

...these are points that‘ll help in understanding where u‘r coming from

... But, try read and digest HARDMIRROR‘S second post on this thread if u have‘nt...i think that should suffice...and if not, do mention

ikupakuti:
Like i pointed out earlier...u guys‘ “i‘m smarter than a religious person“... wont allow u to sit and comprehend b4 making a post

Didnt u read my first post?

Pls do and try to comprehend first...cos the answers to all ur Qs can be deduced frm it

HardMirror:
I don't understand u guys. What about my second post?
No point arguing on these issues. All we need is sincerity with ourselves as we try to understand life

PastorAIO:
No I probably didn't read your first post. I do a lot of skimming. I was just addressing the post that I quoted because it caught my interest. If you know you don't want to answer then that's okay. All the issues about who is smarter is all in your own head, and you keep bringing it up. After all it's the christians that go around saying that their definition of an atheist is a 'fool'. Abi I lie?

ikupakuti:
There is nothing to argue about

He asked some questions which answers can be deduced from ur second post...which i‘m sure he failed to notice

...so, i now refered him back to it, simple

ikupakuti:
Who needs the proof?

A believer or a non-believer? ...and using “reason“ as a backdrop or “faith“

ikupakuti:
@ Weah96

One problem with u is that u‘r nt being sincere even with urself!


Why r u avoiding de Qs i asked indirectly?...u knew it‘ll expose ur folly ryt ?

All i wanted frm u is to take a firm stand bt ur insincerity kept re-occuring in ur posts like a decimal point

...and what is ur definition of faith in this context ?...i bet if u knew u wont come here & tell me “faith is not a proof“

Comparing reason with faith is like comparing classical physics with quantum mechanics...the rules/laws differ

...its like u‘r challenging the authencity of the scriptures/revelations...so what ryt have u to expound ur arguments frm a source u dont believe in ?

...and tell me, what is magic ?...why classify all transcendental acts as magic ?

....e-banking, e-chatting, e-mailing etc would have been termed as magic...like 3 centuries ago by folks like u... But now, is it?

...ur sense organs through which u aquire knowledge...i hope u know its got limits capacity-wise...and that also differs frm individual to individual

...GOD said in the Quran that he has in creation... things that‘ll never fall into ur imagination, even if the processor of ur imagination would be running @ trillions of deca-flops per nona second...and that‘ll still be within the confines of reason that has got limited capacity...go ruminate on that

...and by the way what do u even know?...arent u just another confused follower...that‘ll swallow whateva sofar they “make sense“ to him

...what discoveries hav u made on ur own ?...do u have any personal knowledge independently on ur own?

...go continue learning...and when u attain the zenith of reason...come back...lets discourse religion...that‘s where the realm of faith starts

ikupakuti:
@Weah96

Only if u‘ll keep sentiments aside...and answer...those Qs u‘ve being avoiding

...only then ‘ll u realise how simple u sound...in trying to be smart about this issue

But then, keep ranting about Elijah, Jesus & magic...maybe oneday u‘ll make sense



I‘m out

davien:
god being the anthropomorphic entity as written in the Bible/quran/book of Mormon/Jewish Torah does not exist...

The same goes for any other description of gods that are logically inconsistent..

HardMirror:
Picture the ancient Egyptians in your mind,
Picture them worshiping the sun and saying "oh sun, you are the creator of life!"
Would they be wrong?
Absolutely no!
But the problem is them assuming the sun is conscious and accepts sacrifices.

Same with seeing the earth as God.
It makes sense to an extent, but goes overboard when the worshipers give these Gods human attributes.

I hope you understand the point I am making? To each his own god.

We can claim an unknown God and probably unknowable which is the origin of all existence, just for the sake of theoretical relevance. What this god is would always be unknown because the frontiers of creation is definitely infinite.

That is the point I am making here.