₦airaland Forum

butterflyl1on:
Hi "about to wed girl"

You are being very brutal though extremely honest here. It's like this thread opened your eyes in ways you never imagined possible. How are you doing?

About to wed girl? Hmmmm... Amen oo. I receive it!

About my eyes being opened, you can say that again

I'm doing well bro. Thank you so much.

sonofluc1fer:
Hehehe. Hw body? Been a while.

It's really been a while. You've been the one hiding now

I'm off to bed so let me say goodnight to you first. Catch you later.

bennyann:
You're too much OkCornel, I love the bolded.

I can vouch for hopefulLandlord, he will respect you through your conversations. It's rare for him not to and if it happens he can't hold it anymore, I'll advise we suspect the other.

One that seem so (very) insulting is Tohzara. But he's like an egg to me because I love him so much. He is so knowledgeable I can't wait to learn from him. He insults for fun but he apologizes when he feels you deserve it. Most times he takes his insults as normal because he feels that's the right way of really expressing how he sees your expression without being sentimental. He believes he should say the truth he sees in your writings. He is the worst nightmare to anyone who insults him first.

One thing people don't know is he has so much love in his heart to give, like he really knows how to love but you've got to love him first or love him too.

Tohzara you really need Jesus. I want you to know I went through one of your post and in it I saw a reply to a post of mine. I learnt something.

Thanks dear...all glory be unto the Most High...

I find it refreshing discussing with people who are ready to tell themselves the truth...be it theists or atheists...

There're so many positive and useful things to learn from one another...

That being said...it appears many people do not understand the things Jesus lived and died for...so they see Him as mythical...or that He never existed...









Permit me to open another chapter on this thread. And I would like all theists and atheists to put on their detective caps to help weigh in on this question...which is somewhat related to the question the OP started the thread with...

DID JESUS TRULY EXIST? OR IS HE JUST A FAIRY TALE...

Some say He's a concept invented by the Romans to brainwash and control the masses...

This is not another needless argument session. Please let us make our points for or against the existence of Jesus...

We can kickstart this one tomorrow morning...that's if anyone is interested ...

Cheers and goodnight...

Seun means T H A N K S, a Word of God @The Beginning and is God, The Light of The World. It exists.

It exists. It abounds and It's flourishing.

Seun is not Bokoharam nor Biafra. It's Nairaland.com.

The problem is your use of the word "faith", and your reluctance to see that axioms are accepted on very particular criteria, or else, the axioms, "science rests on faith", and "buda has two heads", and 1+2=2+1, are all as valid axioms as any other. Basically, any statement can be an axiom, which we both agree is invalid.

What I wondered when I asked you to explain was that the "faith" you meant was not the religious "faith in unseen things". You have attempted to separate your faiths, but not sufficiently enough for my personal liking. You might not mind the mistake being made, but I guess I need the error not to be made that the faith of your science is not the faith of the religious.

The religious want to treat their postulates as axioms, and the evidence they provide for the validity of their 'axioms' is the supposed 'self evident word of god'! A problem arises because not everyone accepts the premises by which the religious accepts the written word of god. Some people do not accept the postulates of the religious as axioms because they do not fit particular criteria.

You claim axioms are self evident, yet claim they cannot be proven. Now that's funny. If I see vaxx coming towards me, I'll say, "I see vaxx coming towards me". Assume now that sciencewatch says "prove it", I just point to vaxx coming towards me. It would be odd if sc says, "that's not proof", since it is self evident. The evidence for proving that "vaxx is coming towards me", is the self observable evidence that Vaxx is indeed, at that particular moment, coming towards me!

The same goes for 2+1=1+2. It is self evident that every 2, added to every one, is equal to every 1 added to every 2. And any attempt to produce a different result using the same criteria - the agreed understanding of what 1 and 2 represent - will evidently fail.

The phrase, "axioms are self evident", does not mean they cannot be proved, as you wish to believe it to mean. It simply means that the evidence to prove axioms is that they are evident; that no more proof than, "Can't you see?" suffices. Axioms are only accepted because they are seen to hold true. Anyone looking at them would see that they are as described. The proof of the pudding, as is said, is in its eating. And yes, it is acceptable and reasonable to have faith in the evidence of things one sees.

Before an axiom is accepted as an axiom, some evidence to its validity must have been presented as evidence. In fact, you will find that scientists go to some extreme rigour to prove or disprove axioms. They are called axioms because all attempts to falsify them fail, yet the most compelling validity for their holding is evident, you can see for yourself.

But like I said, the fact you claim I do not know what I'm talking about shows how much of it you hear. Enjoy Sunday.

vaxx:
i repeat Science is built upon on unprovable set of philosophical assumptions. and i gave example of axioms... you said it can be tested.... i am still awaiting your response on it..... if you do additional mathematics where you have to prove the answer, the proven answer will be supported by the theorem which base its self evidence on axioms, what i mean here is axioms is the benchmark of any provable answer, therefore it cannot be falsify..

The great faith that holds science together is the assumptions that there is objective external reality and every hidden aspect of nature can be unlock by human intelligence...

your further post still show you do not really understood what axioms is.... i will do my best to explain a little here...'' axioms are assumptions accepted and chosen by individual scientific workers is certainly a fact but only a superficial one. A more penetrating notion is that while scientific axioms are continuous with the assumptions of everyday thinking they are factors necessary in carrying on intellectual and scientific work. Whether known or unknown to the worker no intellectual work can be organized into a system of interpretation and explanation without the operation of axioms as basic assumptions. In a notable sense scientific work attains its meaning and significance largely in the measure of its deliberate inclusion of assumptions guiding the work''.http://web.utk.edu/~wverplan/kan...

Even Richard darkwins( most famous atheist) accept that axioms is an assumption that can never be proven or tested http://richarddawkins.net/articl... at this junction if you are not getting it, there is nothing i can do

Axioms are not statements we're claiming without proving them. They set out the rules of a game that we'd like to play. The rules of a game can't be "true" or "false"; that's a type error. They can be interesting or uninteresting. i think this where you have the problem... treating axioms as statement, it is just a rules that should be follow.... one of the axioms of playing snookers is do not play the black ball first, it is set standard for the game, you can not prove nor disprove why it should be so.

you keep on conflating the definition of faith to the teaching of the bible, only FSM knows why you are doing so ... i have given you the faith definition according to science, i expect you to work around it...

hope you are not conflating hypothesis with axioms....?

hypothesis is the first approach in scientific investigation, it is consider an intelligence guess that work around some set of created axioms model
to develop its own theorem.... it is when this theorem agree with the axioms model that it can be called a theory. using the theory of relativity as an example.... i will implore you to read extensively. on it...... Am sure you should be able to see your own error here..... pens up

vaxx:
faith simply means unproven believe that is hold to be true,

axioms means self evident that cannot be proven....


how are they are not similar? both of them are base on thought process....

Yeah, I thought as much. Your definition of faith is simply the rewording of "believing in things unseen".

Those two statements are not similar vaxx. They are in fact saying the opposite of each other.

A self evident thing is not unseen! The fact that it is evident implies it has been seen. The seeing is the proof of the validity. They are believed to be true only because they have been seen to be true. And hence are taken to be true by faith in the fact that anyone would see they are true, within the parameters in which they are proposed.

modik:
Beside Him there's no other, Jesus is the Way.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uZJiHb2ENU

God bless you for that song! Only Jesus can save our necks. Jesus is the Answer!

Emmanystone:
Yes pls.

Enjoy. I'll post the link at the end of this wonderful story.

bennyann:
You're too much OkCornel, I love the bolded.

I can vouch for hopefulLandlord, he will respect you through your conversations. It's rare for him not to and if it happens he can't hold it anymore, I'll advise we suspect the other.

One that seem so (very) insulting is Tohzara. But he's like an egg to me because I love him so much. He is so knowledgeable I can't wait to learn from him. He insults for fun but he apologizes when he feels you deserve it. Most times he takes his insults as normal because he feels that's the right way of really expressing how he sees your expression without being sentimental. He believes he should say the truth he sees in your writings. He is the worst nightmare to anyone who insults him first.

One thing people don't know is he has so much love in his heart to give, like he really knows how to love but you've got to love him first or love him too.

Tohzara you really need Jesus. I want you to know I went through one of your post and in it I saw a reply to a post of mine. I learnt something.

Bennyann. Thank you.

OLAADEGBU:
God bless you for that song! Only Jesus can save our necks. Jesus is the Answer!

Gracias

But seriously, how do I know without an iota of doubt Seun is not a mere program or his responses not just some random taping of the keyboard by a whirlwind

Like the OP, I am not sure Seun exists just yet.

butterflyl1on:
I am seeing very interesting things on that thread. Like this for example.


https://www.nairaland.com/2338294/must-read-why-how-became/9#34490526

Oh, you found the thread? Thank you.

Now everyone can see what i said.


@Ronpet777 here is the link to the thread

Emmanystone:
Oh, you found the thread? Thank you.

Now everyone can see what i said.


@Ronpet777 here is the link to the thread

Thanks a lot sis. I hv been on it since he dropped d link. Will be back with my observations.

budaatum:
The problem is your use of the word "faith", and your reluctance to see that axioms are accepted on very particular criteria, or else, the axioms, "science rests on faith", and "buda has two heads", and 1+2=2+1, are all as valid axioms as any other. Basically, any statement can be an axiom, which we both agree is invalid.

What I wondered when I asked you to explain was that the "faith" you meant was not the religious "faith in unseen things". You have attempted to separate your faiths, but not sufficiently enough for my personal liking. You might not mind the mistake being made, but I guess I need the error not to be made that the faith of your science is not the faith of the religious.

The religious want to treat their postulates as axioms, and the evidence they provide for the validity of their 'axioms' is the supposed 'self evident word of god'! A problem arises because not everyone accepts the premises by which the religious accepts the written word of god. Some people do not accept the postulates of the religious as axioms because they do not fit particular criteria.

You claim axioms are self evident, yet claim they cannot be proven. Now that's funny. If I see vaxx coming towards me, I'll say, "I see vaxx coming towards me". Assume now that sciencewatch says "prove it", I just point to vaxx coming towards me. It would be odd if sc says, "that's not proof", since it is self evident. The evidence for proving that "vaxx is coming towards me", is the self observable evidence that Vaxx is indeed, at that particular moment, coming towards me!

The same goes for 2+1=1+2. It is self evident that every 2, added to every one, is equal to every 1 added to every 2. And any attempt to produce a different result using the same criteria - the agreed understanding of what 1 and 2 represent - will evidently fail.

The phrase, "axioms are self evident", does not mean they cannot be proved, as you wish to believe it to mean. It simply means that the evidence to prove axioms is that they are evident; that no more proof than, "Can't you see?" suffices. Axioms are only accepted because they are seen to hold true. Anyone looking at them would see that they are as described. The proof of the pudding, as is said, is in its eating. And yes, it is acceptable and reasonable to have faith in the evidence of things one sees.

Before an axiom is accepted as an axiom, some evidence to its validity must have been presented as evidence. In fact, you will find that scientists go to some extreme rigour to prove or disprove axioms. They are called axioms because all attempts to falsify them fail, yet the most compelling validity for their holding is evident, you can see for yourself.

But like I said, the fact you claim I do not know what I'm talking about shows how much of it you hear. Enjoy Sunday.

Well done BudaAtum. I am following this awesome dialogue between you and VAXX with admiration. You guys have entered a region beyond mere logic. Take care to first agree on definitions to avoid unnecessary conflict.
VAXX has taken great care to explain his definition of faith as applied to science. Be mindful that theological faith is applied differently and therefore produce very different results.

It is Sunday and I am tuned in to the greatest practical spiritual learning channel called Emmanuel TV.
I LOVE YOU, JESUS !!!

OkCornel:
Thanks dear...all glory be unto the Most High...

I find it refreshing discussing with people who are ready to tell themselves the truth...be it theists or atheists...

There're so many positive and useful things to learn from one another...

That being said...it appears many people do not understand the things Jesus lived and died for...so they see Him as mythical...or that He never existed...









Permit me to open another chapter on this thread. And I would like all theists and atheists to put on their detective caps to help weigh in on this question...which is somewhat related to the question the OP started the thread with...

DID JESUS TRULY EXIST? OR IS HE JUST A FAIRY TALE...

Some say He's a concept invented by the Romans to brainwash and control the masses...

This is not another needless argument session. Please let us make our points for or against the existence of Jesus...

We can kickstart this one tomorrow morning...that's if anyone is interested ...

Cheers and goodnight...

You and others here are doing a great job of bringing superior truths into hell. May the supreme power of the HOLY SPIRIT protect you all from the dark forces directed at you as a result of sharing the greatest truth mankind will ever know.

I LOVE YOU, JESUS !!

OkCornel:
Thanks dear...all glory be unto the Most High...

I find it refreshing discussing with people who are ready to tell themselves the truth...be it theists or atheists...

There're so many positive and useful things to learn from one another...

That being said...it appears many people do not understand the things Jesus lived and died for...so they see Him as mythical...or that He never existed...









Permit me to open another chapter on this thread. And I would like all theists and atheists to put on their detective caps to help weigh in on this question...which is somewhat related to the question the OP started the thread with...

DID JESUS TRULY EXIST? OR IS HE JUST A FAIRY TALE...

Some say He's a concept invented by the Romans to brainwash and control the masses...

This is not another needless argument session. Please let us make our points for or against the existence of Jesus...

We can kickstart this one tomorrow morning...that's if anyone is interested ...

Cheers and goodnight...

OkCornel, you and others here are doing a great job of bringing superior truths into hell. May the supreme power of the HOLY SPIRIT protect you all from the dark forces directed at you as a result of sharing the greatest truth mankind will ever know.

Only faith pleases God.
Knowledge is not the real answer to our problems. Obedience is - TB Joshua

I LOVE YOU, JESUS !!

budaatum:
...............Now that's funny. If I see vaxx coming towards me, I'll say, "I see vaxx coming towards me". Assume now that sciencewatch says "prove it", I just point to vaxx coming towards me. It would be odd if sc says, "that's not proof", since it is self evident. The evidence for proving that "vaxx is coming towards me", is the self observable evidence that Vaxx is indeed, at that particular moment, coming towards me!

But like I said, the fact you claim I do not know what I'm talking about shows how much of it you hear. Enjoy Sunday.

BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.

Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.

You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.

Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."

ScienceWatch:
BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.

Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.

You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.

Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."

whao....good response

budaatum:
Yeah, I thought as much. Your definition of faith is simply the rewording of "believing in things unseen".

Those two statements are not similar vaxx. They are in fact saying the opposite of each other.

A self evident thing is not unseen! The fact that it is evident implies it has been seen. The seeing is the proof of the validity. They are believed to be true only because they have been seen to be true. And hence are taken to be true by faith in the fact that anyone would see they are true, within the parameters in which they are proposed.

happy sunday bro....sciencewatch give you a good reply....

superior1:
But seriously, how do I know without an iota of doubt Seun is not a mere program or his responses not just some random taping of the keyboard by a whirlwind

Like the OP, I am not sure Seun exists just.

Then I must say that you are not that bright.

budaatum:
The problem is your use of the word "faith", and your reluctance to see that axioms are accepted on very particular criteria, or else, the axioms, "science rests on faith", and "buda has two heads", and 1+2=2+1, are all as valid axioms as any other. Basically, any statement can be an axiom, which we both agree is invalid.

What I wondered when I asked you to explain was that the "faith" you meant was not the religious "faith in unseen things". You have attempted to separate your faiths, but not sufficiently enough for my personal liking. You might not mind the mistake being made, but I guess I need the error not to be made that the faith of your science is not the faith of the religious.

The religious want to treat their postulates as axioms, and the evidence they provide for the validity of their 'axioms' is the supposed 'self evident word of god'! A problem arises because not everyone accepts the premises by which the religious accepts the written word of god. Some people do not accept the postulates of the religious as axioms because they do not fit particular criteria.

You claim axioms are self evident, yet claim they cannot be proven. Now that's funny. If I see vaxx coming towards me, I'll say, "I see vaxx coming towards me". Assume now that sciencewatch says "prove it", I just point to vaxx coming towards me. It would be odd if sc says, "that's not proof", since it is self evident. The evidence for proving that "vaxx is coming towards me", is the self observable evidence that Vaxx is indeed, at that particular moment, coming towards me!

The same goes for 2+1=1+2. It is self evident that every 2, added to every one, is equal to every 1 added to every 2. And any attempt to produce a different result using the same criteria - the agreed understanding of what 1 and 2 represent - will evidently fail.

The phrase, "axioms are self evident", does not mean they cannot be proved, as you wish to believe it to mean. It simply means that the evidence to prove axioms is that they are evident; that no more proof than, "Can't you see?" suffices. Axioms are only accepted because they are seen to hold true. Anyone looking at them would see that they are as described. The proof of the pudding, as is said, is in its eating. And yes, it is acceptable and reasonable to have faith in the evidence of things one sees.

Before an axiom is accepted as an axiom, some evidence to its validity must have been presented as evidence. In fact, you will find that scientists go to some extreme rigour to prove or disprove axioms. They are called axioms because all attempts to falsify them fail, yet the most compelling validity for their holding is evident, you can see for yourself.

But like I said, the fact you claim I do not know what I'm talking about shows how much of it you hear. Enjoy Sunday.

self evidence is tantamount to unseen, persomal experience, subjective stand and it cannot be enough in the court of law.... Bro.......I need to go for my swimming class

vaxx:
self evidence is tantamount to unseen, it can not be enough in the court of law.... Bro.......I need to go for my swimming class

Lol....what did I just read?

Self evidence is not enough in court?


So if a black man in court says that he is innocent of a crime because all the witnesses said the crime was done by an Asian man, does he need to prove the self evident claim that he is black?

superhumanist:
Then I must say that you are not that bright.

l

I give you that since it is your subjective opinion

superhumanist:
Lol....what did I just read?

Self evidence is not enough in court?


So if a black man in court says that he is innocent of a crime because all the witnesses said the crime was done by an Asian man, does he need to prove the self evident claim that he is black?

The answer you are looking for rest on your question..... Court we seek to verified from the withnesses if it is false or true.....at least there were witnesses who claim it is Asians only. And not the Blackman

.the evidence will be gotten from the witnesses and not the black man.......self evidence is not enough in the court of law

superior1:
l

I give you that since it is your subjective opinion

No. That is a fact and not a subjective opinion.


You have the power to read about Seun Osewa on Google and do more research.

But you chose to lay back and ignorantly claim that you don't believe he exists.

You are not bright.

[quote author=superhumanist post=65163369][/quote]Again, it is your subjective opinion. I have read alot of myths on Google lately

vaxx:
The answer you are looking for rest on your question..... Court we seek to verified from the withnesses if it is false or true.....at least there were witnesses who claim it is Asians only. And not the Blackman

.the evidence will be gotten from the witnesses and not the black man.......self evidence is not enough in the court of law

How silly of you.

The self evident claim here is that the black man is black.


Try again

superior1:
Again, it is your subjective opinion. I have read alot of myths on Google lately

Read my post again

superhumanist:
No. That is a fact and not a subjective opinion.


You have the power to read about Seun Osewa on Google and do more research.

But you chose to lay back and ignorantly claim that you don't believe he exists.

You are not bright.

superhumanist:
How silly of you.

The self evident claim here is that the black man is black.


Try again

l am lost .....you brought up a sily analogy, I try as much to sanitized the silliness from it .....by telling you court will verify if the crime is actually done by Asians as the black man claim.....the bone of your sily analogy is who committed the crime......how should the court rely on self evidence theory.....is it not sily to you.......please .......it is too early......am done.. For now ....in an hours time , you can quote me again....

ScienceWatch:
BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.

Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.

So, I point to vaxx walking towards us, and that is not sufficient evidence for you, because I am an atheist?

Does the fact I am an atheist make you blind?

ScienceWatch:
You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.

Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."

I don't remember saying "self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective". But I should have said it and hope I did, because I agree with the statement. If a thing is only evident to me, it is not sufficient for me to convince others it is there (well, unless I am their god and they believe whatever I tell them!). But, lets look at my example above.

I say, "vaxx is coming". (Subjective view of mine)

You say, "where?" (Requesting objective evidence)

I point to vaxx whom is walking towards us (Presenting the object vaxx)

You see vaxx - if indeed he is walking towards us and the atheist is not just lying (Objective evidence seen!)

The fact is that if you see vaxx coming towards us, the evidence is no more the sole "self observable evidence" of mine. It becomes the "evidence observable by you too", i.e., Objective, as in, seen by any other subject irrespective of your stupid subjective biases!