₦airaland Forum

JackBizzle:
Oh.....and deism validates Christianity ABI?

So Jesus was preaching about his deist father in space?

Thats for theists and deists to argue....
Under the topic: The nature of God

And as far as we are concerned, you are not a deist.

But wait, in your dictionary, I guess the word "existence" and "nature" means the same thing?

KingEbukasBlog:
You exist is one thing . Your nature is another thing .

I know there's a jackbizzle - this is one thing . But I don't how you look like , do I ? I don't . But this does not change the fact there is indeed a JackBizzle .

This is easy na bro ... haba !

Honestly, I dont know how this is difficult to understand.

KingEbukasBlog:
You exist is one thing . Your nature is another thing .

I know there's a jackbizzle - this is one thing . But I don't how you look like , do I ? I don't . But this does not change the fact there is indeed a JackBizzle .

This is easy na bro ... haba !

Really?

Jackbizzle exists? Could you prove that I am not a computer programme that Seun developed to debate Christians on nairaland?



Stop being obtuse.

To prove that I , Jackbizzle, exist, you must argue that I am a being that types and reasons like a human being.

And by that alone, you have touched on the nature of a human being for dogs and other animals do not reason.



Checkmate bro.

felixomor:
Thats for theists and deists to argue....
Under the topic: The nature of God

And as far as we are concerned, you are not a deist.

But wait, in your dictionary, I guess the word "existence" and "nature" means the same thing?

To argue that something exists, one must touch on the nature of that thing.

For you to argue that you have a car, you would say that it is, a black Toyota with a certain license plate.

JackBizzle:
To argue that something exists, one must touch on the nature of that thing.

BIG LIE
I know you exist, but I dont know your nature, I dont even know if you are white or black.....
Take it easy mehn

JackBizzle:
For you to argue that you have a car, you would say that it is, a black Toyota with a certain license plate.

Nah, it is not a must.
My car exists, period.
If you want more details, thats another topic.

Its very simple bro....
No matter your gymnastics

JackBizzle:
The difference between my atheistic materialist philosophy is that I focus on real problems while you choose imaginary solutions.


The problem of infinite regress is a difficult one that has not been solved. A paradox. I admit it.


You on the other hand, have faith in the imaginary solution that doesn't answer anything.

Your answer means that your God is abstract. Imaginary. Unreal. Only such things could be said not to have a beginning

The problem is that there is no such thing as infinite regress . Because we have science and logic to prove infinite regress is impossible '

Anything that is contingent depends on something else for its existence , that means for it to be contingent it is possible for it not to exist . If infinite regress is possible , NOTHING WILL EXIST . And we have something which is the universe but still SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING (Ex nihilo nihil fit ) . [Bearing in mind that God is something ]

And that is the reason why the expected corollary is to affirm the existence of God as a necessary being which cannot not exist due to the necessity of its own nature .

We have been saying this same thing for centuries .

Atheism is just empty abeg .

JackBizzle:
Really?

Jackbizzle exists? Could you prove that I am not a computer programme that Seun developed to debate Christians on nairaland?



Stop being obtuse.

To prove that I , Jackbizzle, exist, you must argue that I am a being that types and reasons like a human being.

And by that alone, you have touched on the nature of a human being for dogs and other animals do not reason.



Checkmate bro.

You just shot yourself in the foot . You being a computer program , a robot , or a human being is YOUR NATURE . Your existence(whatever behind the moniker JackBizzle) is one thing and your nature(human , robot , computer program ) is another .

felixomor:
Thats for theists and deists to argue....
Under the topic: The nature of God

And as far as we are concerned, you are not a deist.

But wait, in your dictionary, I guess the word "existence" and "nature" means the same thing?

Excellent my brother .

I'm not sure why he does not get this .

KingEbukasBlog:
You just shot yourself in the foot . You being a computer program , a robot , or a human being is YOUR NATURE . Your existence(whatever behind the moniker JackBizzle) is one thing and your nature(human , robot , computer program ) is another .

OUTSTANDING !!!

felixomor:
OUTSTANDING !!!

Thanks bro . Hopefully , he gets it .

Oh wait , he is an atheist . You will never get it

JackBizzle:
Really?

Jackbizzle exists? Could you prove that I am not a computer programme that Seun developed to debate Christians on nairaland?



Stop being obtuse.

To prove that I , Jackbizzle, exist, you must argue that I am a being that types and reasons like a human being.

And by that alone, you have touched on the nature of a human being for dogs and other animals do not reason.



Checkmate bro.

Oh Jack! You said this?

Is existence applicable to only humans? Existence and nature can be muddled up and you are doing just that.

Existence is different from one's nature. To exist is a state of simply being and has nothing to do with the nature of that which exists.

You also said dogs and other animals DO NOT REASON! Really?

The aspects of dog cognition include empathy, memory, reasoning, cunning and communication. Plus a dog has the ability of learning up to 1000 words and can differentiate which means what. So dogs are at the reasoning level of a young child.

So based on this ones "nature" can be manipulative and deceptive. I could even assume that you could be a dog typing and not a human based on your earlier submission (link this to a dog and it's reasoning ability of a young child).

Nature is at variance with existence. All "nature" differs and you cannot begin to mentally quantify the nature of a God "creator" who made everything seen and yet unseen. You would be misled if you even tried.

KingEbukasBlog:
You just shot yourself in the foot . You being a computer program , a robot , or a human being is YOUR NATURE . Your existence(whatever behind the moniker JackBizzle) is one thing and your nature(human , robot , computer program ) is another .

What is this one saying?

What exists? My name or my body?

How then do you say that my body exists without describing it? How do you differentiate my body from others

JackBizzle:
What is this one saying?

What exists? My name or my body?

How then do you say that my body exists without describing it? How do you differentiate my body from others

You are repeating your error again Jack!

One does not need to "describe" your body to know you exist. Your existence can be in a comatose state yet you exist. You could be a vegetable or a tree. Yet you exist.

EXISTENCE IS SIMPLY A STATE OF BEING.

Nature then talks about your workings or characteristics.

Does a fly exist? You would answer yes without offering a description.

Does a fish exist? You would say yes without offering a description.

Same with trees and every other thing both animate and inanimate.

spacetacular:
You are repeating your error again Jack!

One does not need to "describe" your body to know you exist. Your existence can be in a comatose state yet you exist. You could be a vegetable or a tree. Yet you exist.

EXISTENCE IS SIMPLY A STATE OF BEING.

Nature then talks about your workings or characteristics.

Does a fly exist? You would answer yes without offering a description.

Does a fish exist? You would say yes without offering a description.

Same with trees and every other thing both animate and inanimate.

It's because we have a fore knowledge and are familiar with the nature of fishes,flies and humans... Thats probably why you won't need a description.

I think one has to touch the nature of something to prove to yourself/anybody else that that thing exists.

realtem:
It's because we have a fore knowledge and are familiar with the nature of fishes,flies and humans... Thats probably why you won't need a description.

I think one has to touch the nature of something to prove to yourself/anybody else that that thing exists.

Not necessarily! Let's delve into ontology for a moment shall we?

If the word exists were restricted to refer only to what can be perceived, it would lose its normal meaning almost entirely. We could no longer say that laws exist, that numbers exist, that moral principles exist, or that corporations exist. We could not even say that gravity exists, or quarks exist (yes quarks not quakes) or that the core of the Earth exists. Strictly speaking, we could only say that our perceptions themselves exist, so we could not even say that the screen right in front of us now exists, because that is a physical object supposed to be the cause of our direct perceptions, and is not the direct perception itself. So, unless we are going to completely redefine the usual meaning of the word exists, we have to say that what exists is not limited only to what can be perceived. On the contrary, what exists is (with the exception of perception itself) always something quite apart from perception.

The question then becomes, in what sense do things outside of perception exist. Ultimately, all things outside of or beyond direct perception meaningfully exist only within a certain context.

Within the common framework of physical realism, the physical world as described by our current well-confirmed physical theories exists. Within the framework of Euclidean geometry, perfect circles and right triangles exist (but they do not exist in the physical world). Within the context of non-Euclidean geometry, triangles with three right angles exist, but not within the context of Euclidean geometry. What exists and what does not exist thus depends on the context that is (often implicitly) presupposed, i.e., things exist only relative to some framework or context. Independent of any such context, one can not meaningfully say what does and does not exist.

Can you then say God does not exist because you cannot perceive him with your human senses?

spacetacular:
Can you then say God does not exist because you cannot percieve him with your human senses?

No.

realtem:
No.

Good answer! I wish JackBizzle would be this honest rather than further confusing himself with his inner ramblings.

Cheers!

spacetacular:
Within the common framework of physical realism, the physical world as described by our current well-confirmed physical theories exist. Within the framework of Eucludean geometry, perfect circles and right triangles exist(but they do not exist in the physical world).

By stating the realm/framework/world in which something exists, i think we have given a property/feature/nature of that thing or an hint of what the nature of what the thing might be.

realtem:
By stating the realm/framework/world in which something exists, i think we have given a property/feature/nature of that thing or an hint of what the nature of what the thing might be.

That is within the common framework of physical realism.

Not everything is physically perceived. This would then give credence to a soul / spirit or what a lot of people sometimes term as the sixth sense.

Let me make it simpler. Things existed outside our perception even before they were "physically" discovered and things also exist outside our physical perception even without being able to physically discover them.

It's like the question, when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Is the sound proof that the tree fell or there is sound regardless of the lack of human presence?

The sound is the human perception but even without that did the tree fall or not?

spacetacular:
That is within the common framework of physical realism.

Not everything is physically perceived. This would then give credence to a soul / spirit or what a lot of people sometimes term as the sixth sense.

Let me make it simpler. Things existed outside our perception even before they were "physically" discovered and things also exist outside our physical perception even without being able to physically discover them.

It's like the question, when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Is the sound proof that the tree fell or there is sound regardless of the lack of human presence?

The sound is the human perception but even without that did the tree fall or not?

what(in my post) is within the framework of physical realism?



And what are you driving at?(no offence please)


You still remember my argument, right?



I agree with the boldened.

realtem:
what(in my post) is within the framework of physical realism?



And what are you driving at?(no offence please)


You still remember my argument, right?



I agree with the boldened.

This was your comment which I replied to :

By stating the realm/framework/world in which something exists, i think we have given a property/feature/nature of that thing or an hint of what the nature of what the thing might be.

That comment of yours showed me that you did not understand my comment based on ontology.

What I am driving at is that physical proof is not always required in order to show existence because not all existence is "physically" perceived!

spacetacular:
This was your comment which I replied to :

By stating the realm/framework/world in which something exists, i think we have given a property/feature/nature of that thing or an hint of what the nature of what the thing might be.

That comment of yours showed me that you did not understand my comment based on ontology.

What I am driving at is that physical proof is not always required in order to show existence because not all existence is "physically" perceived!

i understood your comment 100% and i am not asking for physical proof of things existing in other realms.
But it is you who did not understand mine.





All i'm saying is things in different realms have different properties, right?
Now, God does not reside in the physical realm, right?
By acknowledging this, we have established that some properties of things in the physical realm does not apply to God. Hence, by stating the realm in which sth exist/does not exist........

.......Hence, by stating the realm in which something is existing/non-existing, we have discovered some of the props of that thing.












I hope i am making sense.

realtem:
i understood your comment 100% and i am not asking for physical proof of things existing in other realms.
But it is you who did not understand mine.





All i'm saying is things in different realms have different properties, right?
Now, God does not reside in the physical realm, right?
By acknowledging this, we have established that some properties of things in the physical realm does not apply to God. Hence, by stating the realm in which sth exist/does not exist........

Yes!

It's like a man who builds a machine. He can put some of his nature in the machine in order for the machine to be able to make some sense of things but he isn't an actual physical part of the machine. He stands apart from the machine while making it.

The machine cannot perceive it's creator beyond what it has been programmed to.

You catch on quick.

realtem:
.......Hence, by stating the realm in which something is existing/non-existing, we have discovered some of the props of that thing.

I hope i am making sense.

Stating the realm still does not give us access to all its properties. The best we can do is speculate. We can however to a great degree be a lot more accurate in our realm but anything outside this (spiritual realm) becomes hazy.

[quote author=spacetacular post=58355877][/quote]you're making a lot of sense.

spacetacular:
This was your comment which I replied to :

By stating the realm/framework/world in which something exists, i think we have given a property/feature/nature of that thing or an hint of what the nature of what the thing might be.

That comment of yours showed me that you did not understand my comment based on ontology.

What I am driving at is that physical proof is not always required in order to show existence because not all existence is "physically" perceived!

Name 3 things in existence that you have perceived "non-physically"

JackBizzle:
Name 3 things in existence that you have perceived "non-physically"

Did you read my comment or not?

I mentioned quarks. Have you perceived them physically?

Have you perceived the earth's core?

Can you perceive dark matter?

Can you perceive ultraviolet light?

Can you perceive gravity? It can be measured but not observed.

Can you perceive The Mind?
We can observe the brain and its chemical reactions, but thoughts are completely intangible to us.

Can you perceive quantum particles?

You asked for 3 but I have offered you more than that just to show how narrow minded you are.

spacetacular:
Did you read my comment or not?

I mentioned quarks. Have you perceived them physically?

Have you perceived the earth's core?

Can you perceive dark matter?

Can you perceive ultraviolet light?

Can you perceive gravity? It can be measured but not observed.

Can you perceive The Mind?
We can observe the brain and its chemical reactions, but thoughts are completely intangible to us.

Can you perceive quantum particles?

You asked for 3 but I have offered you more than that just to show how narrow minded you are.

I don't know who is more of a clown, you or felixomoron.


Quarks are observable through Hadrons.
The earth core exists physically. Google for pics.

Etc.

Ogbeni. These are all physical things.

JackBizzle:
I don't know who is more of a clown, you or felixomoron.


Quarks are observable through Hadrons.
The earth core exists physically. Google for pics.

Etc.

Ogbeni. These are all physical things.

Wait! The earth's core exists due to pics on Google? You are simply built for laughs.

So you can perceive the earth's core through google pics?

Do you know what the term PHYSICALLY PERCEIVE means at all?

Quarks on their own are NOT observable. My focus is on quarks and not hadrons. Your level of ignorance seems legendary.

Here I am sipping tea and laughing so hard. You take the dumb cake Jack. You really do.

spacetacular:
Wait! The earth's core exists due to pics on Google? You are simply built for laughs.

So you can perceive the earth's core through google pics?

Do you know what the term PHYSICALLY PERCEIVE means at all?

Quarks on their own are NOT observable. My focus is on quarks and not hadrons. Your level of ignorance seems legendary.

Here I am sipping tea and laughing so hard. You take the dumb cake Jack. You really do.

Abeg swerve.


Keep sipping tea.

JackBizzle:
Abeg swerve.


Keep sipping tea.

Still laughing so hard here. You are obviously not a scientific mind. You just postulate rubbish at every turn.